.•-»f^f^eifl^ ,'riSlnnis t ^siSHi- !- .h IN THE HI6H COUKT OP JUDICATURE AT BILASPlWt CHHATTISSAftH Cr, A. QF 2005 APPELLANT: arfn^(te::^@J ^^\":.<:£^ >-" :,l-.ri State of Cbhatt-iS9arh through Station House Officer, P.S. Jaijaipur, Oistt. Jonjgir- Champa (C6) jl teO.K.V -^^ i^SPONDENTS; VERSUS Ifr^.is i[. •?>,a'l<^ -\) Ir 1) Shasnin Bai, W/o Damodar Chandra, aged about 51 years 2) Damodar Chandra, S/o Hetram Chandra, aged about 59 years 3) Lakeshwari, &/o Damockir Chandra, aged about 28 years 4) Lalitram, S/o Damodar Chandra, aged about 29 years 5) Kantaprasad, 5/o Damodar Chondra, aged about 26 years, All R/oJ/iltage Betaduta, P.S. Jaijaipur, Oistt. Janjgir-Champa (C6)^=M4eA».^^4^' APPLICATION FOR 6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL VNt>ER SECTION 378^(3^AN& MEMORANbUM OF APPEAL UNDER ^ SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE. im a — KBI31K?;:1 SS^SS&S^SVSKw ^^^•^'11^^ ^^g^^sS''1^S"3IS£ SSsSSSSl aJBiHiWltfl^K^ Si HA'EMSGARH: BILASPUR SiEN6I-iEgMEN®Ii^|H@ 'Bt^SH^M/m[NDRft3^ SS '^ ^^ :?^ aB:s; ^m 1:<? 'l'! Ai APPLICANT RESPONDENT Cr.M.P N0.355^2008 State ofCttllaftisgarh Versus Ghasniri Bai & others lARriicaticm.ilter^eraatofclieaiiKc^iaDl^alt^ ;Mea;norahiduia^SAij^&^;u^S^781^t):.Of::<^^<3.:r' ^;"': -i - - • • •: •AppearaUce::':;" •.•.:• / 1.': ' : .•:1: •' • ' ^ 1':: Shri Sushll Dubey, Govf. |Advocate for the Sjtate/ applicant. OiRAt-ORSER ; •'. ; .: 1: 'r;: l.:.:^:: ,(Pass8cl:,Gii3E@9p09.2&10); • : s :::. :, ., ' ' : .^n' 1. Heard ;on applicatiQn foi- 'grant of leave fo appeat 'tSy' ^JHd|gErient; Dd| jl j acquittal dated .2i0til. April?.20Q5 •pagsea:l«y,tlie Additiejnal/GIi^fIJudiicii^tl i|'g] .:Magistrate,'ISaktiin'CrinMaal:CaseN&. 1253/97. •' 11:.;1 : .' • l^^^l 2.1LeaiTied cdunSelfor the^applican1;suSmits\t^ ^^ has acquifted-the acciised/resp^n^ertts f^ t&e Gharges| lev&lle41| | against them igndrihg |fyte versioii of eyewithe^ !S1 sx'i' ^alki:;:Bffi|:j (P.W.l), Dfcaneshwari^B^J(P.W'.^.aiid Pumn^ submits that' the prosecution liasi'proved^ /'hS K.f.''W.[!W^"S DhaneshwaiA^Bai (!^W'.2^^®^reGeivedinjiu^ "^il ^:'K<iil?Ji:if ^BM':t:"l!ft; :1 applicant.:"aj^es,that:;l3ie;';C<^r(Jt^elc^ disbelie\magit:he s1»ry offfig^ -eyewitnesses,' oli .ttt®;Ba!Sis!JQf|;eer^mffl|gcrepancies iYersion.^fflfi •ii^ MK^ M::.K ay JE;oiitFaHKs|i{Ns '^R?^l ;J^l;; -2- B:-:;SJ'i:sii. in their statements which were trivial and not very material so as to corapletely dislodge the case of the prosecudon. 3. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal as also statements of concerned prosecutions witnesses. 4. The learned Court below has meticulously examined the testimony of Lalki Bai (P.W.l), Dhaneshwari Bai, (P.W"2) and Purandas (P.W.3) and other witnesses. The learned Court below has taken into consideration that the version of the prosecution witnesses suffers from serious contradictions and dmissions and the manner in which the offence alleged to have been comraitted and manner in which the injuries were inUicted and the role which was played by the accused persons has been found to be different in the version of various prosecution witnesses. On the basis of those contradiction and omissions, the learned Court below has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the learned Court below does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity and I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Court below is possible and plausible and, therefore, no case for grant ofleaveto appeal is made out. 5. Application is accordingly rejected. .. ._ _ _ _____——— Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen