HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPU! CQRAM: B!VI§!^^ENCH HON'BLE SHRl RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRi RAMGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J ADDlicant/: Appeiiant Respondents: Criminal Misc. Petition No.533 of 2010 State of Chhattisqarh Versys 1. Peelu Alias Netram aged about 32 ysars, S/o Kripsram R/o Pakhnspara Gandei Police Station Korba, Distt. Korba, ChhaSSIsgarh. 2 Bedram, aged about 33 years S/o Kriparam R/o Pa napara Gangdsi Police Station Kbrba Distt. Korba, ChhaStisgarh ADDlication for arant of leave to appeaj under Section 378 (31 and memo of appea! under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 Present: Shri Akhii Agrawal, Pane! Lawyer for the petitioner / State. (9th Augyst, 2010) The following .order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Akhil Agrawal, iearned Panel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal agalnst the acquittal of respondents /accused persons Peelu allas Netram and Bedram. 2) Police Korba after completion of the investlgation of the case registered on the report of comptainant Hiradas charge-sheeted as many as nine accused persons namely, Milandas, Sumirandas, Peelu alias Netram, Bedram, Champa Bai, Kirtandas, Trlveni Bai, Kumari Baby and Brahmanand for the alleged commisslon of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148, 302 read with Sectlon 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Pena! Code on the accusation of their having commltted murder of deceased Banshidas and of having attempted at the life of Hlradas on 24-10-2001. 3) The lower Court vide order dated 04-04-2002 separated the trial against Brahmanand and directed the police to flie charge-sheet against him before the Juveniie Court. 4) The respondents/accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false impiication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 147/148, 302 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5) At the trial the above charges were sought to be proved against the respondents/accused persons on the evidence of PW/1 Hiradas, PW/2 Kunwariya Bai, PW/3 Phool Das, R/V/4Shankar Das, R/V/5 Ramla Bai, PW/6 Baithmaidas, PW/7 Kafiikdas, PW/8 Dharamdas, PW/9 Vijay Kumar Anant, PW/10 Tikaus Das, PW/11 Ganesh Pandey, PW/12 Grahan Singh, PW/13 Dr. Amardas Purena, PW/14 M.P. Tandon and PW/15 P.C.Sonkar. 6) The tria! Court on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence of the above named prosecution witnesses found accused Sumirandas guilty of the commission of murder of deceased Banshldas and accused Sumirandas and Milandas guilty of causing (S) grievous hurt to Hiradas. The triai Court further held that the prosecution could not establish any offence against accused persons Peeiu alias Netram, Bedram, Champa Bal, Kirtandas, Triveni Bai and Kumari Baby. On the above findings, the trial Court whiie convicting accused Sumirandas under Sections 302 and 326 and accused Milandas under Section 326 of the indian Penal Code, acquitted accused persons Peelu aiias Netram, Bedram, Champa Bai, Kirtandas, Triveni Bal and Kumari Baby of all the charges. 7) Out of the six accused persons acquitted by the trial Court, the petitioner-State sought leave to file appeal against accused Peelu alias Netram and Bedram only. 8) Accused Sumirandas challenged his conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code by filing an appeal which came to be registered as • Cr.A. No.386/2003. 9) During the pendency of the present petition under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeal fiied by accused Sumirandas was fiwlly decided vide judgmeriT dated 20-08-2009 whereby his conviction & sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penai Code was set aside and one under Section 326 ofthe indian Penal Codewas maintained. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the triai Court leading to the acquittal of respondents/accused persons Peelu alias Netram and Bedram; the evidence ied by the prosecution at the triai; the ^ flndings leadlng to the acquittal of accused Sumirandas under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the judgment dated 20-08-2009, passed in Cr.A.No.386/2003, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the tnal Court teading to acquittal of the respondents/accused persons do not suffer from any infirmity, whatsoever,. 11) Mere possibillty of another view on the prosecution evidence not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant Interference in an appeal against acquittal. 12) The petition flled by the petitioner/State under Section 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice b'ubbu Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge