.'•^ ^V^^^.YV^-z^^^^^,^-<^.;tnA^^<^VUfc^AAA/'&^^—' ^^^^^^^^,:^.^. ^/ya1^^^^'^-c ^-<:.^.^.^^^: '^- ^^/J; ^1 (S'^L^..^'"J^-*^ INTHEHliGHCOURTOFJUIDlCATUREiM-ail.ASPUR! :;: CHWJCTttSSG^ftH ''M^C.R.C.Nb.::^^'6F2004 ^;:^.:a^N CRIMINAliJkPPEAL N0,. QF2004 Appellant Applicant State ofChhattisgarh "Through; Statidn 1-iciUse Officer, P.S.Donaai-qarh Distt. Rajnandgadnm VERSUS ResOcincterits; Noh-Appiljcahls ..liii': -^i-tli IhC'"^'"- ^•^ ^w Saraturam '' ^S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged^bout43 years Synil Kumar S/o Baratu Rarri Satiu Aged about 19 ygars Anll Kumar m .^fl^^4 s/Q.§raIU1Ramsahu Age^aB»tF26years ^ /-.: •• : ^ Jaintri Bai 1 W/o Bai'atu R.aha Sahu aged a-yout42 yeairs! y. ^y\: (Allresiclents of WU I. Mju Fn-tUR P.S.yaongargarh, Distt. w Ra.jriandgaon}.;,^.;, •;, V:k!^ aliQlgllBAVfe%0';«l>PEAl.:EllHBltEitt IEfflfl6SiKaKlE3i!HlflBlfiMBlGlMlRRi^sSiiBnaK£ SEGtlO'iffiitTlS&liyilQRl lifllili^iN^liSRiHaWBiRffli SiSTiii1 ifNl::il' ^Wi' ^iiiijSii IMII 1IM IIBBI lliSM iig HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Acquitta Appeal No. 89 of 2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Baratu Ramand others ^•^iS! Sli,A-s:^g!s:Kiasr Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the, appellant/State. Shri Devrishi Thakur counsel for the respondents/accused. . , CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGWIENT (14.03.2011) This appea! has been filed against .the judgmeht and order dated 12,11,2003 passedby the SpeeiaLaydge, Rajnandgaon in Special CaseN6.6p/20Q&acquitting therespBndents/aceysed ofthe offencesunder Sectibns; 294/34, 325/34, 5Q6/34:1PCiread'with 3 <1) (x) of ^tBe: Schetlyled Caste and; Scheduled "Tnbe preveritron of AtroGjties)/<cf, 1989.(fDrshdrt.tMe"Act"),^ f.'\,...'i:i.^^^'^:. ', 2. Facts 6tth^c;ase;in bhet are that on 20.3.2003 report Ex. P-2 was toclged by^l-axman (PW-1) allegjng tl-iat ori 17.3.2003 the resporide.nts/aecus.ed .f-iad'.abused him and pe.lfed stones at his tiouse. .lt:i$^Il6ge<3';that tftecon'iplainantwas hurled at filthy abuses in the narne^of caste and^was assaulted also as a result of which he sustained irijury;infliis left leg. It is alleged that previously also i.e. on 28."1,2001 th&fibmplaihant was beaten bylhe respondents/accused for wtiich a.report was lodged and the case for that is pending. Based on this report, FIR Ex. P-5 was registered on 30.3.2003 under sections 325/341PC and 3 (1) (x) of the Act. After investigation, c/ia//anwas filed by the police on 17.4.2003 under sections 323, 325/34 IPCand 3 (1) (x) ofthe Act. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the <ll>, „.„..' 1 'Nte.. I -^uSgii S 'y / i^y ?- Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegation made against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them by thejudgment impugned. Mence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that in spite of the overwhelming material available on record in favour of the prosecution, the Court below has committed an error in ignoring the same and acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge levelled against them by the judgment impugned. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused supports the judgment impugned and submits that the Court below has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter and as there are material eontradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, the judgment impugned being based on the material available on record is fully justified and does not call for any interferencein this appeal. 7. According to the evidence of Laxman (PW-1) he was abused and assaulted by all the respondents whereas as per the written report lodged by him, name of Jaintri Bai (respondent/accused No.4 herein) is not there. Further, the statement of Laxman (PW-1) has not been duly supported in exact terms by Gendu (PW-4), Manrakhan (PW-6), Babulal (PW-7), Bahuru (PW-8) and Uderam (PW-10) and if all these statements are taken into consideration, there appear to be material discrepancies in the same. These witnesses have assigned different role to the accused persons and based on that it is difficult to ascertain as to who was the real culprit. Further, the Couri: statement of the complainant if compared with his written report, carries material variations. Evidence of Babulal (PW- 7) also reflects that there existed some okl enmity between the respondents/accused and the complainant. ;?;!'^.. 8. Thus minute examination of the material available on record goes to show that the findings of the Court below based on the grounds adumbrated aboveappear to be fully justified. This Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the same. Furthermore, being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial'Court taking one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore this Court is of the consideredopinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Sections 294/34, 325/34, 506/34 IPC read with 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "Act"), is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. —- ^^— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^' ^'K