Sin.T l-KKG; K);i RVMC^':" &f',.,.'^.)1-'- PT£n -,^y;Ql-) - -..—..^nULE ,.^? 'i3T3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0.^.3^) OF 2011 ACQUITTAL APPEAL N0. OF 201 1 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH: P.S. CHARCHA, DISTRICT KOREA (C.G.) p.R.to......^^.^^--^_ PreM'atetfbsf Shri^...<^.....^^US * n L.....7..>^-i/—••——•""''• •l^lflt NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT SMT. ANUPAMA SD^GH D/0 SfflV PRATAP SINGH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/0 MAHALPARA, BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICTKOREA (C.G.) APPLICATIQN FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 (3} AND MEMORANDUM^)FAPPEAL U/S 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 sn^i'^'KT ^«n3n^ig?i!W ,\ ^ € ^> 'S^ ^liqid^ ^W^TTO, !'s|rti'M'J,< G..^'£:..lnAl SD^IT^TC ^giw ^iftg s!it?i l=ntAii<'i'i^i 'RR^f ^ ft1^ TT^^K ^7 3lRlI! .3?R!.T Shri Akhil Mishra. Dv. Govt. Afcjvocate forthe State/aDDlicant This aDDlication seeking leav^ to aoDeal is barred bv 70 davs. On due consideration. delav i$ condoned. Learned State counsel is heaitd on admission. Respondent/accusej was tried for offence under Section 294, 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x)iand 3$2)(vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocjties) Act. Learned tnal Juage nas Tourfl tnat according to tne complainant Maya Khatik. who has been examined as PW-1. she was abused and humiliated by the aocused on 19/05/2009 and 23/1 straightway complain was made to tl1e Superintendent of Police on 22/01C010, theretore there is considerable deiav the Dolice authorities. It has also be^n held bv the trial Court that in spite of the fact that the said abusive ill tre^tment and humiliation extended to the complainant was in front of several 1/20D9. however, no FIR was lodged and in bnnaina tne matter to Vne Knowledge ot ^naanbadi workers and vet none of them were oroduced as witness, Thus. Tie triai Court has found the case of the Drosecution to be not wortriv ot crtditiilitv so as to record conviction ot tne accused. ia In the matter of Unfon oflndfa Vs. Bal ntokund and Others reDorted in (2W9) 12 SCC 161, Hon'ble Suprerte Court has held that the High Court shall not exercise the power under Sectiijin 378 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside an order of acauittal only on the around that a dlfferent view coulcl have been taken by the tnal Uourt. Considerina the material pl^ced before this Court, this Court is ngt inclined to admit the application. Acciirdingly, it is dismissed^/-- '-'""^£tf^