•su •K J,\s IN THE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC ^06~2 /20ai-> /2001 State of Chhattisgarh Versus ^^ k^ ^^>""^ ^yy ^^•^. !?/.'••' <y .& ^- sp 1^' APPLICATION FOR AND MEMO OF 1. Bisahu Ram, S/o Jagatram Yadav, aged about 55 years 2. Tij Ram, S/o Jagatram Yadav,aged 40 years, 3. Panchram, S/o Bisahu Ram Yadav, " aged about 30 years 4. Santram, S/o Bisahu Ram Yadav, aged about 16 years All residents ofvillage Abrid, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5. Firtin Bai,W/o Bisahu Ram, resident OfvillageAbrid, Thana Shivrinarayah Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 1T OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) AL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF 1973 t.:.,. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR SfKER DI RBSPONDENT^ Versus State of Chtiattisgarh Bisahu Ratn & Others Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. tbr the State/applicant. Ms. Bhavna Nigam, counsel for fhe respondents. APPUCATION FORGRANT OF LEAVETO APPEAL U/S 378(31 MBMO OF OF THB CRIMINAL PROCEDURBCODB (2^.07.2010]| : The present appeal arises out of the judgment aad order dated 10.8.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Janjgu--Chaaipa in. Criminal Case No. 848/2000 wheFebv- acquitting fhe respondents of the atteged offences under Sections 147,325 / 149, 324/ 149, 323/149 ofI.P.C. 2. Brieffacts offhe case are that on 13.7.92, FIR was lodged by Latel Ram (P.W.-l) aUegmg ia it fhat oa fhat day whea he atong with Sam.adra Bai (P.W.-2) & Bharat (P.W.-3) wss returmng after coUectuig his catde, accused persons Kave assaulted theni as a result ofwhich fhey sustained iajuries. 3. Froin tiie judginent it appears fhat fhe prosecutiou has examuied 7 witnesses So as to hold the accused/respondents guflty, iacludmg the comp]aitiant (P.W.-l) Samudra Bai (P.W.-2) Bhaiat (P.W.-3) & Balram (P.W.-4). Statement of t&e accused/resnondents were also recorded uader Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in. which they deaied the charges leveUed agaiast fhein and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. ^^^ I^^i '"•Si.S^ 4. After heanag counsel for the parties, fhe Coiut below has acquitted the accused/respondents for ttie offence as Dientioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Though fhe record of the Court below was suminoned bv fhis Court to which itifoiiiiation has been sent bv the trial Coiirt fbat the record has alreadv been destroved and therefore this Court proceeds to decide the present case nierely on the basis of judgnient filed by the State couasel and which are in possession ofparties. 6. Contention of Shri Das, is that on fhe basis of fhe evidence adduced toy fhe prosecution, the Court below ought to ha.ve convicted fhe accused persons. He submits fhat the witnesses have categorically sta.ted as to iu what inaaner they have been assaulted. 7. On ftie other haad, it has been argued by fhe counsel for the respondents fhat the view taken by the court below is one of fbe possible view and therefore in an appeal agaiiist acquittal, this court niay not niterfere unless tbe court coiaes to a conclusion fhat fhe finding amved at bv the court below is totally perverse. She also subinits that a report was lodged by accused Bisaliu Ram on 13.7.92 aad on fhe basis ofwhich, a couuter case was registered against fhe coinplamaat and. his party and tfaerefore it is not clear as to who was tfae aggressor. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties aud perused the iaipugiied judgment and fhe record as filed by the State counsel. 9. Froni the judginent it appears that in fhe tucident accused/respondent Bisahu had also suflered iajuries and on the basis of his report fhe coiaplamaut parfy was prosecuted. Froin the evidence, it is also clear that the indepeiident witnesses KaU. Rain, Ram. Sai aad Bishram. have not supported fhe prosecution case and therefore onlv the interested witnesses reiaain who were allegedly iuiured ia the incident. .,^fete.>,^ ic^,J^ f 10. I find no reason to interfere ia the judgiaent of acquittal particiilarly fhe view taken by fhe court below is one of fhe possible view. It is a settled position of law in relation to cases agauist acquittat, ia a petinon agaiast acqiiittal if two views are possible on the basis ofthe evidence led by the prosecution and fhe tria] Court takiag one view favouied the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by fhe appellate Court tafcing fhe other possible view into consideration is not pemMSsible in law, fhis Court is ofthe view fhat fhe judginent tmpugned acquittui^ fhe respondents/accused of fhe offence is just and proper. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal agaiast the judgmcnt of acquittal is herebv refiised. F Sd/- I Pritinker Diwakar Judge