i:ISS!m'sf •^.^ ias'ts'hi^» ";a:^aia APPELLANTS/: RESPONDENTS: Qiy' 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. IADDeaiNo.1003oT2i Ratiram, S/o Ghurauram, aged about 55 Mangatursm, S./o Ohanwa, aged about 72years (died), Sagaruram, S/o Dharamsingh, aged about 38 years, Mahadeo, S/o Firaturam, aged a'oout 28 ^-^ irs, pardeshsram, S/o Sukcharan, aged about 55 years, Rohidas, S/o Dhanwar, aged about 40 years, Rajaram, S/o Sukdas, aged abou years, t V i. lu'''. Laxman, S/o Mehattarram, aged about 45 years, ihikham Singh, S/o Rajar about 30 years, ^afi t^" Al! R/o Viilsge Singanpur, PO Sarona, Tahsl! and Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Versus Udesingh Shori, S/o Punauram, aged about 35 years, Alor Singh, S/o Baratram, aged about 38 years, Mangauram, S/o Mansingh, aged about 28 years, Devkaran Kunjam, S/o Ramjeevan, aged about 28 years, Madanla! Ganjir, S/o Jhumuklal, aged about 30 years, Balaram, S/o Shyamla, aged about 30 years, Lelharam, S/o Kheduram, aged about 60 years, Lstkhor, S/o Dharmu,..-aged about 45 years, Mangalu Ram, S/o Unknown, aged about 40 years, ftsiasSBs. i ^. '^^y •%iiAs^ 'S&fSsa 10. RudeshwarSingh, S/o Punauram, aged about 28 years, 11. Ishwar Stngh, S/o Jhumuklsl, aged about 40 years, 12.. Duksiuram, S/o Kejauram, aged about /• Ali R/o Village Singanpur, PO Sarona, Tahsil Kanker, Distf. Kanker (C.G.) {Crimina! appeal under Section 378 (4) ofthe Code of Criminai Procedure, Present: Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counse! for the appeiiants. ,J —^ (13-1-2009) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 17-3-2003 passed by the 3 Additiona! Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), f<tenker in Crimina! Appeal No.54/2001 reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-4-2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Msgistrate, Kanker in Crimina! Case No.565/97, whereby learned Chief Judiciai Magistrate has convicted the respondents under Section 294 read with Section34ofthel,P.C. 2. The judgment of acquitta! is challenged on the ground that sufficient material was available before the Court be!ow, but the Court below has acquitted the respondents and thereby committed sn iliegality. 3. i have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeHate Court has mentioned in para 7 of its judgment that the respondents have used the words "'"K?;te, 'ffRT^tw^, TTFgr c?PT" which is obscene, but the Court below has acquitted the respondents. 5, The words "ITK^N, •'TTCT^T?!, ^^ ciW have na literary means and th.e same are not obscene words. The Court below has rightly acquitted the respondents and it has not committed any iiiegality or inflrmity in passing .;.•",,.;•:';;% . '^t, "^^y^. ^ v J I" S) the judgment of acquittai. 1 do not find any force in the appeal, same is liable to be dismissed afid it is hereby dismissed. 6. Consequently, M.(Cri.)P.No.2750/2003 stands disposed of, ^c:ris3 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge °.!:°S n3!!)i h^!-.'»<!!gB