•- ;. V-!^'^ '''^^^'" l^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coram: Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Acauittal Appeal No. 74 of 2011 ApDella^nt Complainant Respondents Vs. 1. 2. 3. Mirza Hafeez Baig, s/o. Mirza Haidar Ali Baig, aged about 38 years, occupation Lawyer, r/o. Mandi Chowk, Chulhat Road, Takhatpur, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG), Shatrughan Dhuri, s/o. Jarhu Dhuri, aged about 45 years, Caste Dhuri, r/o. village Kurankapa, P.S. Jarhagaon, District Bilaspur (CG). Bhagwat Prasad Koshle, s/p. Paltu Koshle, aged about 34 years, Caste Satnami, r/o. village Kurankapa, P.S. Jarhagaon, DistrictBi]aspur(CG). .(Accused persons) State of -Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Jarhagaon, District Bilaspur (CG). (Application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973)) .Present: Mr. Mirza Hafiz Baig, petitioner in person Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3/State. ORAL JUDGM1ENT i/ (Deliveredon 3-8-2011) Per T.P, Sharma. J. 1. Heard on admission. •^. •lesdde aqi pesoddo AILUJ^ eieis/S'ON tuspuodsaj jo^ Buuesdde eteooApy 'IAOQ 'SJIBMQ •>ra yqs 'puei| jeqio SLII UQ •g ^ . •e|qenBjB ; aq 01 sjesdde leedde 94} pue iBM6eqg luepuodsej/pesnooe-oo q)!/v\ 6uo|e Aoejidsuoo jo eouejeqijn^ uj jspjniu 3|qnop 10 eoueyo P9UILULUOO SEL| 8L| }Blf\ 81UUO sqi qiiM ueL|Bnj}EL|S luepuodssj 9L|t peuuoo o^ luepiyns si eouepiAesiLiiiBqi syiuqns Jeqyn^ e)-| •}j8A|no eqt ui puno^ sem jeqtojq p Apoq peep pue sqmL|s ui punoj. SBM jaqioiu eq»^o Apoq peep -ure z ie 8002-9-ZZ UQ 'LuaL|i ||i>| - pinoM Asq»}e{\i 900Z-9-ZZ uo LUISBH ezj!|/\| p9se93ap peueieejqt' pue LUISBH BZJI|/\| @ uoijr 'jeqiojq pue eiqey 'joqtouj 314 jo jepjnai p UOISSILULUOO JQJ SM)OLU 6uoj}s BuiAeq iGMBeqg -pssnooe -oo qiiM Aoejidsuoo o\u\ pejstue ueq6nj}EL]g luepuodsej tei|l siiuiqns psjepjntu A||eimq uesq aAEL| jeqiojq pue J9L|(OLU esoqM pue a}EOOApv UB si oqM 'uosjad ui jeuoiii^sd 'Bieg zyeH ezJ!|/\l yMS 'fr •Odl equo g-QZL uoipes J9pun unL|d UBL|Bmieqsiu3puods8j sq} payinboe seq MO|aq ijnoo 'Qdl SMI ^0 Z0£ uoipsg jepun s|4so» pesejcl ye/AGeiiQ pssnooe-oo BUIIOIAUOO 9|!4M jspunejaiim pue AqejeqM 'gooZ/eS 'ON IBUi suoisssg ui i|s6un|/\| (ou) eBpnp suoisses leuoitippv puZ Aq pessed Ol.OZ-OI.-Oe psiep 'unqa ueqBmiBLis I.'ON tuepuodsaj 01 Buiieiej leuinboe p iu9Lu6pnf Q{\} p Aisudojd pue AI!|EBS| eqt psBueiieyo seq tueuieidLuoo/iueiiadde '(,,spoo eq},, 'yoqs joj) gze l 's-inpsoojd IBUILUUQ 10 8pOQ Ql^ JO zzg uo!psg jepun |B9ddB leyinboe siq} /(g •e •01.0Z/ZZ9'ON SSBQ [euiLuuo ui 3|qe|!BAB M0]aq ijnoo ^o pjooej eL|} pssmsd 'z ;^ 6. As per evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution including the evidence of petitioner in person that pn 22-5-2008 both the respondents threatened deceased Mirza Hasim that they would kill them and prior to 22-5-2008 there was somedispute between the parties. Petitioner lodged reportat Police Station against both the respondents. Except this evidence, prosecution has not collected any evidence against respondent No.1 Shatrughan to connect him for commission of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. Theaforesaid evidence relating to motive for commission of offence may be strong, but prima facie is not sufficient for any finding relating to commission of conspiracy or murder of deceased. Therefore, we do not find any ground for interference in exerciseof appellate jurisdiction relating to acquittal of respondent No.1 Shatrughan under Section 120-B ofthe IPC. 7. Conseqyently, withouf entering into merits of conviction and sentence of respondent Bhagwat, the appeal filed by Mirza Hafeez ,Baig, petitioner in person against judgment of acquittal of respondent -Shatrughan is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R-N. Chancirakar Judge Raju