'-•"'Va yq" T ,; 1 %^%ft^"^^-i":;! ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDFIAKAR, JJ. Applicant/ Appellant Non-apDlicants/ Respondents Cr.M.P.No. 438 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station Bamhnidih, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 1 Versus 1. Pradeep Sharaf, aged about 51 years, S/o Kunj Bihari Sharaf. 2 Amit Sharaf, aged about 27 years, S/o Rajendra Prasad Sharaf. 3. Suresh Sharaf, aged about 65 years, S/o Balbhadra Prasad Sharaf. 4. Saurabh Sharaf, aged about 24 years, S/o Keshav Prasad Sharaf. All residents of village Bamhnidih, Police Station Bamhnidih, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ApRlication for arant of leave to appeal under Section 377 f3)and Memorandum ofAppeal under Section378f1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Present : Shri D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate forthe applicant/State. QRDER (Passed on 03ro Auaust, 201 1) Per T.P. Sharma. J. 1. 2. Heard. By this petition under Section 377 (3) read with section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner has challenged legality and proprietyof the order of acquittal pf respondents for the offence punishable under Section 307 ofthe I.P.C. ;'B%fe:S-R,!.w;'='^^S^^?P ^^s^ V;. 3. This leave to appeal has been preferred after 460 days delay of its limitation. 4. Learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant submits that previously state had preferred appeal undersection 377 ofCr.P.C., whichwas withdrawn with liberty to file another acquittat appeal along with the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. He also submits that delay caused in filing present petition is bonafide and matter was pending before this Court in another capacity. He further submits that applicant has good case on merit and onty on the ground that Dr. has not specifically opined nature of injuries, Court below has acquitted the respondents of charge for the offence punishabte under Section 307 ofthe I.P.C. 5. Judgment impugned, copies of the statements ofwitnesses and copy of charge sheet perused. 6. As per the evidence of Anand Agrawal (PW/13) he was assaulted by two respondents namely Pradeep and Amit, Court below has convicted respondents under Section 324 of I.P.C. along with other charges. Complainant was examined by Dr. K.R. Singh (PW/7) who has noticed one lacerated wound of 7"x1 "x1" over right parietal and occipital region. In absence of any fracture or admitted contusion, injury found over the head of injured could not be determined as fatal injury. After detailed discussion, Court betow has acquitted all the respondents ofthe charge of 307 ofthe I.P.C., instead of convicting respondent No. 1 and 2 under Sections 324, i ^ ofthe IPC along with othercharges. ft i ^l -j—yf~n— r^v jay 8. In our considered view while convteting respondent No. 1 and 2 under Section 324 of the IPC instead of Section 307of the IPC, acquitted respondent No. 3 and 4. On the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, Court below has not committed any illegatity requiring any interference by invoking supervisory jurisdiction. Consequentty, finding of the Court below resulting to conviction and sentenced of the respondent No. 1 and 2, even we do not find any ground for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents for the offence punishabie under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Consequently, the case being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. Aecordingiy, I.A. No. 1/2011 for condonation of delay in Rling leave to appeal is dismissed. SdA- ^S&arma Judge Sdl- R.N. Chandrakar Judge