lN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BLLAArSPL—Jw'm "/CR.M,.P.N0. Q]? 0F20@J ACOUITrAL ’¥No. i bF 20057‘ / APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (4) - OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 APPLICANT Bhikhamber Rajwade Son of Late COMPLAI AN} Khadru Ram, aged about 45 (5" years, Resident of Viliage Jagdishpur, Police Station and Tahsil Am'bikapur, District on q/a/ Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS NON-APPLICANT Amarjeet @ Munnu Son of ACCUSED Indrajeet Rajwade, aged about 23 years, Resident of Viliage Jagdishpur, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). HxGH €DuRi‘ (J? CHHATiTSiaARE #3“ $1MSPURI. (lian. Mr, 3ustuce Pritmken' Diwaimr; Ac umaEA ea! No.195 2mm Aggnicantz Campiainan Bhikhambgr Rajwwe Non-agghcant Amarjeet @ Munnu Accused Ms. Neha Verma, counse! for the appiicant. Shri AN. Pandey, counsel for tha nan—appiicant. iciatfion for leave to a eai under-Section 378‘ 4 of Ithe ’ gade cf Cmmal P acadure, 1§?3. - ' ‘ 9 Raw?” E 13; (as as zen} The prasent appeai Is directed against the judgment and ' order dated 19 11 2007 passed by Judicial Magastrate Férst Class, Ambukapur an Cnmmal Case No 112/2m05 whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishabie under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of- the case ia’re that’ 0n >2i 09 2001 complaint wés flied by the applicant against the non apphcants Ram Bahan and, Purushottam under Secuons 294 506 (B), 147 148 and 42? of the IPC It ‘5 alieged by the apphcant that the non—applicants are crlmmal by nature and they always abused him, bet hum and also used to threaten him V sgfurt eged that on 11 09 2001 the. I non—applicants have removed his bamboo and when he tried to stop them he was abused, threatened and beaten by them. t ' I :I raHe According the compiaint, report was iodged against the non- appiicants, but no action has been taken against them, therefore, occasio for f complaint arose. 3. After recoring the preliminary statement of the compiainant, the triai Magistrate has registered offence against the non- appiicant under Section 4Z7 of the IPC. However, after recording evidence of both the parties, Iearned triai Magistrate has acquitted the non-appiicant under Section 427 of the IPC hence the present appeaL 4, Contention of Ms. Neha Verma, iearned counsei for the appiict is that the Court beiow has erred in law in acquitting the non—applicant and i ought to have convicted him. 5. On the other hand! supporting the impugned judgment, 5hr? Pandey, iearned counsei for the non-applicant submits that the acquittai of he respondent is strictiy in accordance with law and there is o infirmity in the same. 6. From the evidence avaiiabie on record, it is apparent that the and in estion where the aiieged theft of bamboo was committed, was of Government, and more so there is no cogent Iegaily admissible evidence on record to show that the bamboos were of the alicant. Learned trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence on record has arrived to a particular conclusion of acquitting the accused/respondent. to n mng d an t t n i qu pp 7. I find no reason of interfere in the judgment of acquittai particuiarly the view. taken by the Court beiow is one of the possible view. It is a settled position of law in reiatien to cases against acquittai, in a petition against acéuittai if two views are possibie on the basis of the evidence ied by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appeiiate Court taking the other possible view into consideration is not permissible in iaw. This Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent of the offence as aileged is just and proper. Accordingly, the appeai which isrdevoid of any substance is liabie to be dismissed and is accordingly dismisseya t / ”Ti” Karma/a / r//’ (‘fmke‘ 5dl. Diwak . er i s P dge l r gsexggxu; w; lawmgih‘it: tkeglmemisx‘“