^.4^ t.^-^ •iFlcATIONN0.996(yD^8Z^?0^ ^f^ ^ _ ^-" ,,.T:-T'd() ^^:....."oi^i l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURjtCGl CR.M.P. N0. ^^ ' / 2009 ACOUITTAL APPEAL No. / 2009 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, District Surguja (CG.) VERSUS C.No. 671, Goverdhan Yadav S/o Indradev Yadav, Aged about - 25 years, R/o Village Rampur, P.S. - Chalgali, District Surguja (CG.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEA\?rE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(31 AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PRQCEDURE, 1973 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 369 of 2009 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENT Goverdhan Yadav, C.No. 671, Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the applicanVState. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (02.12.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29.1.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, in Criminal Case No. 11/2008 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences under sections 354, 186, 294, 506(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.1.2008 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Ku. Vinayaka Yadav (PW-1) alleging that on that day when she was teaching in Primary School, Bhanoura, respondenVaccused came there, caught hold of her hand and told her to keep her as his wife. It is further alleged that the respondenVaccused abused threatened her that if she married some other person, he would kill her. 3. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that there was ample evidence available on record including the evidence of the complainant so as to convict the respondent/accused for the offences under sections 354, 186, 294, 506(A) ofthe Indian Penal Code but the Court below has committed a serious error in ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal in favour of the respondent. ^7t. — ^- 4. Prosecution has examined 09 witnessesin support of its case. Statement of the respondenVaccused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. Perusal of the evidence available on record shows that the complainant has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she was teaching in the school respondenVaccused came there and told to keep her as his wife and if she married some other person, he would do away with her. The Court below has acquitted the respondenVaccused of the charges levelled against him on the ground that the complainant and the respondenVaccused were in love and therefore, catching hold of her hand by the respondenVaccused and asking to keep her as his wife, does not constitute the offence alleged against him. Moreover, the Court below has taken another ground for acquittal that the allegation of abuse made against the respondenVaccused has not been supported by any other independent witness. The record reveals that accused who examined himself as a defence witness has stated that it is the complainant who was having one sided affair with him and number of love letters were also written by her to the respondenVaccused. The said love letters were filed before the Court below as Ex. D-1 and hand writing of the complainant has been identified by Chhatradhari (PW-7). From the contents of the letters it appears that the complainant was having affair with the respondenVaccused and was desperate for marrying him. Mukesh (PW-4) has also stated that he had come to depose before the Court at the instance of the complainant and for that she had paid money as bus fare. Thus the Court below has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence led by the prosecution suffers with material contradictions, therefore the respondent/accused was entitled for acquittal. 6. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much ,;^,^.li;l^jy conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one yiew 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 respondent/accused of the offences under sections 354, 186, 294, 506(A) of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicanVState for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge