‘ BY NOTIFICAnoN coun‘rFEEsEmm-ao m Moa- B/c uhOF 6105 ms as specm’sn codm Fags msmsmé Am 1m $m§l£ agngh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. No. 4 35 /2oos ACQUITTAL APPEAL' N’o. Izoos APPELLANT : The State of Chhattisgarh Through — District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1 Saheblal 6L7 . S/o. — Glaasiram, Aged about — 47 years. . Nanki, S/o.- Ramcharan, Aged about — 61 years. . Jitendra, S/o.- Saheblal, Aged about — 21 years. . Pankaj, S/o. Nankiram, Aged about - 23 years. . Smt. Bhagwati, W/o.— Saheblal, Aged about - 4O years. Smt. Barmati, W/o.- Nankiram, Aged about - 55 years. All are R/o. — Pamgarh P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/ S 378,13) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 (IFOF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. f . \n. “\ov\o HEQ-R CGE‘R’I‘ OF CHHA’E‘T‘!SGAE&H AT BELA$PUR SB : HON’BLE MR. J3$TECE PRITII‘é’KER DiiWAKER CRME’. MG. 4951‘2308 APPLICAN‘I‘ Stats of Chhattisgarh RESFGKEENT$ Sahebhl &. Othm‘s AP?LICATION UEDER SECTEQN 3?§j§) Q? ’i‘!—i§§l CLPXL FQR GRANT GE LEAVE & MEMQRARDL‘M OF A??E}AL UNDER SE€TI$P€ 3‘73j 1} OF THE CR.RC. ' .MEpea'rance: Shri Praveen Das, Dy. (1A. fer the petitioasrf Siam. Shri Maiay Shrivasiava, counsci for thc mspgndguts. QRgER gaggzmm Heard on admission. Tm pmsanx petitimi filed umier Saction 878$) is direcmd against the impugnai judgmgm. (hated 29.09.Q®{)é passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jam'gir m Crliiase No. 494f20i)5 whereby the accusedfreepcmdems. have been acquitted of the offeace under Sectioas 147, 294,427 8L 448 IPC. i 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on the basis of i» written complainant report Dushyaili dated 1.2.2003 (?.W.-3} F11? EXPIL elated lodgeé 7.2.2003 by was the registered against ali the accused persons. It is alleged that on 1.2.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused persons had gone to the house of the compiajnant axld started demolishing the wan of the house. It is aileged that when ‘ i7 g the comp1ainant had asked them not to do so ah the 1 accused. persons abused him, threatened him and the said j ‘ wall was also demolished. It is also alieged that on account i of threat given by the accused persons the masons and the labourers who were working there had left the place: After i investigation, challan was filed against the accused yersons. ‘ \ 3. In ordar to prove th€ case, the proéecution has examined as many as eight Witnesses. Statement of the accused] respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges ievelled against them and pleaded their innocence. This ayait, two defence witnesses have also been examined by them in support of their case. 4. P.W’—1 Gajendra Kumar Kashyap the younger brother of the compiainant has stated that on the fateful day his brotherk was abused by the accused persons and the accused persons had demolished one of the wall of his house. This witness however admits that the wall which was demolished was in fact constructed on the way from where the accused persons used to go to the pond. He further admits that the 01d dispute is pending between his family and the accused persons. He admits that in fact the path of the pond was blocked by constructing a wan and there was an order against his brother by the Tahsildar restraining him from any such construction. Similar statement is being made by Tikaram Kashyap (PAM-2) father of the complainant Dushyant himself (PAM—3). Soupath Ram (P.W.—4) one of the mason had also made similar statement. Sure'sh Kumar (P.W.«6) another mason has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. He further states that he doednot know the accused persons before the date of incident. Shyamlal Kathey P.W.—7 who is the Patwan', has filed the relevant documents of the case. He has also stated that for demarcation of the land infra-vie dispute, the proceeding was pending before the Tahsildar. Mahangu (P.W.—8) who is the labourer and was present on‘ the spot has also stated that some incident had taken place. He has however stated that he does not know as to who had constructed the wall. It is important. to note here that the l investigating officer had not been examined by the. prosecution. t @ 5. Considering the entire evidance availablc on mcord and after duv: appreciation of the same, the Couxt below has arrived to a particular conclusion of acquitting the respondent. 6. I fmd no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal particularly the View taken by the court below which is one of the possible View. It is a settled position of law in relation to cases against acquittal. In a petition against acquittal 1f two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the oEences as alleged is just and proper. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. Sdi- Prit‘mker Diwaker Judge