HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASnjR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MBHRA, J. Appellant Respondents Cr.M.P.No. 580 <rf 2018 State of Madhya Pradesh, through Reserve Centre Rajdandgaon Di^rk^ Rajnandgaon (M.P.) VERSUS 1. Puru @ I3arvez son of Raiz ©utldian, aged 30 years. 2. Asif son of Rafique Mian aged 26 years. 3. Azhar @ Ajju son of Raflque Khan, aged21 yeare. _ ^ 4. Astam son of Rafique Khan aged 19 years. Atl residents of Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, DistricA REyiandgaon ABplication for cnrant of teave to aopeal U®378 (31 and memo of appeal uls 378 (11 of Code of Crimlnal Procedure 1973 •Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, leamed Panel Lsnwyer, for e State/petitioner. ORDER (18'nAugust.2018) The foltowing order of the Gourt was |;a^«l by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri JA. Lohani, teamed Panel Lawvyer is heard on the questlon of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittat <rf e' .•i... respwidents/ accused persons Puru @ Paiv®s,Aaif, Azhar @ Aj|u and Aslam. 2) Police Rajnandgaon, after completion of the investgErtion of the case registered on the report of one Santosh chaige-she^ed the respondents/ accused pwsons, for the att^ed commisshm of the offenc^ |Minyhable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 323 read wn i Seetion 34 oflhe Indian Penal Code, on the accu^rtion of thelr having eommitted murder ofdeceased Dinesh Yadav and of <auangsimple hurt to Santosh in the night of 04-06-1996. 3) The resporrients/ accused pwsons abjured their guitt and pteaded false implicatlon to the above chai^s framed by the trlal Court under Sections %)2 read with Section 34 and 3^ readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4) At the triat, the above charg^ against the accused persens were sought to be proved on the evidenee of PW/1 Gayapraseri Sharma, PW/2 Dr RC Tlwari, RW/3 BS NaMu. PW/4 Baratu ream, PW/5 Bhaiya Lal Sinha, PW/6 PS Chandel, RW7 Dr LN Ohruv, PW/8 Mahe^i, RW/9 Sumeri Lal; R/V/TO Bh^waU, PW/11 Prataeh, PW/12 Murari, PVW13 Santosh, PW/14 Narendra Kumar, PW/15 emu, RW18 Tutel Das, PW/17 Bisant Bharati, RW/18 MA Molwani, PW/19 Dr Pravln Chandra Agrawal, MW/20 IH Khan, RW^1 RP Katiyar, RWQ2 Anil Kumar and PW/23 Dr VK Damte. 5) The trial Court on a close scruttny of ttre entire ewtence of the above named prosecution witnesses found thet the y^ :.^^^ (^ prosecution evidence fell short of estabtishing the above char^s against the respondents /accused persons. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents/ accused pereons vide impugned judgment dated 28.04.1998. 6) Shri JA Lohanl, leamed Panel Lawyer vehemently aryed that the trial Court has erred in discarcling the evidence of Vhe prosecution wttnesses on flimsy and untenabte grounds. 7) At the trial, the entire prosecution oase against ttieaccused persons was founded CTI the eyewBne^ account of PW/13 Santosh, PW/14 Narendra Kumar and RW/15 Khemu. Unfortunately for the prosecutton, atl the above named three eyewitnesses did nrt support the prosecutton case at all; These witnesses in their evidence before the trial Court dld nd: even utter a word against the accused persons. The selzure of a lafti, stump and a wooden plank at the instance of the accu^sd persons, even tf belleved, wil not by itself be sufRcient to hdd the accused persons guilty on the oapital cliarge of murder umler Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 8) On due consideration of the submissiwis of teamed Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the triat Cowt teading to acquittal of the respondents/ accused pereons; <he evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in generat and ^that of PW/13 Santosh, RW14 Narendra Kumar and RW15 Khemu in particular; and theaboye mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that Uie fiDdings recorded by the trial Court teading to acquittal of the r^pondents/ accused pereons. do nrt suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 9) Mere possibiltty of another view on the |M-osecutton evidence will not by ttself be a sufRcient ground to warrarrt interference in an appeal against acqutttal. 10) For the foregolr^ reasons, we cto mrt find any good yound for grant of teave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. 11) The petition filed by the peUtioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, faite and is hereby dismissed. —^=^ 1:: Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge subbu