^ CF0000064209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATsJABALPUR, <MoCr.C. No. l^'%'7 OF 200^; Criminal Sppeal No. S, ^ \ ^ OF 2000 y ,., 'z- "^. APPLICANT XPPELL&KT RESPONDENTS v^k. i^^ ./'^y " ./-1 y^'y'^r ^''"A^-''' -..••''' The Stateof Madhya Pradesh 1. Ramkumar alias Jagga s/o ca.tharam Suryavanshi, aged 19 years. 2. Maairam S/o Maheshrain suryavans-i. 18 years. 3. Ishwar soni allas Chhotu S/o Maniklal Soni, aged 20 yearSp 4» Rajkumar alias Raju S/o Ramratan Suryavanshi, aged 19 years» All R/o Khaj-ya Para, Thana Ratanpur, Dlstt. Bllaspar (MP), APPLIC&TION FOR GR&ICT OF LE&VE TO APPE&L U/S 378(3)/ AND MEMO OF APPESL—U'/S-378CD~'OT'-.CR^P«C:'* l! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2515 of 2000 APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS RESPONDENTS Ramkumar @ Jagga and others Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for the State/appellant. None for the respondents. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OJFTHE COD^QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (30,04.2010) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 09.09.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 666/1999, acqujttmg the respondents/accused for the offences under Seetions 457 and 380 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 3rd/4 f March, 1999 a theft was committed in the shop of complainant Ravindra Kant Joshi (PW-1) and it is alleged that certain grocery items were stolen by some unknown persons. On 04.03.1999 F.I.R. (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the complainant and on 28.03.1999 respondents were arrested and their memorandum was recorded and certain articles were also seized from the possession of the respondents/accused. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 31.3.1999 againstthe respondents/accused. 3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses.Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the respondenVaccused for the offence as mentioned above. Hence the .present appeal. ' 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused for the offence under section 457 and 380 IPC but ignoring the same it has awarded acquittal to the respondents and has fallen in a grave legal error. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 7. From the material collected by the prosecution it is clear that there is no evidence availa^le on record to show that it is the accused/respondents who have committed theft and as the F.1. R. is lodged against the unknown persons, offence under Section 457 is also not attracted. Thus the view taken by the Court below in acquitting the respondents/accused appears to be well founded and no interference therewith is warranted. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record and 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 arid the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion ofthe findings ofacquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents /accused of the offence under Section 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 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. t.:a ;.,^°w*" ^^^