/ PPLLAN AET riminal peai No.\ \W '5 9 :Se of Madhya Prades C Ap ‘ /7 ‘ I ~Vsus‘ g s / » \W%\ ‘9Q6 St”mma$%~)a1>zg;* tat h ‘ ‘ ~ / er$- ‘ Shankerlal S/o Ramdayal Verma, ed §0 year Ro blnyan B.S Imarora Distt. Ralpur. RESPONDaN‘l deJ m.nv@mmw*mmmmw w m "m-wm-«w-m PLICATION FOR LEAVE WEN; u s 3783) may c. “ W mo ( ‘ .c. AGAINST Ac ITTL. a 378(1 CR.P UA §w 7 HIGH (SOUR? QF £HHAm5&ARH A? BELA$§L3E Single Bench : Han'hie Mr. Jgwge ?r&§?§nker wwgkar Criménai AwgQ N9. 37h“ #f 1%? Shri Vaibhav Eaver‘dhan‘; Pi. f9; {12 ., Jam/agyhcm Shri Ashish Sumna (3; Shri Ammd Badanya, wunse! far we respanden‘r. V ‘ CRIMINAL APP£AL U‘éEQEQ SE£V£§H 3% (A; (3? ‘i'%-1£- 539% QF k LRL§%ENAL #QOCmDUEE Q UQQEMEN‘? {28.5342 ZQIfJ) The presenf appecd arisag Qm mf ifh" u an? {Mi GM?“ dmgd QéQZAQ?!’ pas5gci by £h%e‘f Eudkm? M§igis?rgm, Rajnandgaon m Criminai Case Na. 83521995 acquiffing th-a respondent/arc < f'w?‘ f?=e miesigd GT’ mg pm shxmie Jnder‘ Sachem 4&8 of .g E man i’enai Ccdg. K w 23. Brief facfs 9f fhe ca$g are *fhai' cm 23‘4¥1?§4 a waniifen vapor? (EXP-3} was icdga§ by :33. Singh {PW-Z}, ‘thg Then AddiTional £a3§e¢mn Rgjnahdgaom mgmiamng m if ‘r’ncn‘ responden‘r/ m‘cu ad af+gr faminn mp df‘CJnwm ho< issued an order affacining Three {sf me empiayeesy Based an Th§s report, invesf§gati6n was done h}; ‘hhe pa§§ce and fha chaiécm was f4 fiigd ' on. 3&81994 f‘er 'fha effeme mder Sedians: ‘ 420,46?,4é8’£md 4'Xingf, lnéian f9em§ {Jada Hewever‘, whiia framing thé charge, "me mum? belaw hms frametj iha charge Under Sedian 1%8 a‘s‘ i'he Ineiian ?em¥ Cade. 3k APPELLANT 5mm sf Madhya ?mdesh ’si'ar‘gas RESPONDEN‘?’ Shankarim san m‘ §amdaya§ Vawma 3‘ In wppar? 9f ifs cgsg, Tha pmszgui'iqn has examingd as many as 4 wimesses. Smtemem a1? the. respandent/accusgd wg$ also regarded unggr $ec‘rién 313 m? fhg Cgdg of Criminal Procedure in which he deniegi fhe. charge Eeve§§ed qgains‘t mm and pieaded innocence ark} fed-3g imp!im‘f§cn in Th3 casg. ‘4, By The judgment impugned the cour‘if belsw has acquifrred ‘the responden? of The eEeged sffence punisnabie under SecTien 4é8 m? Thta lndjan Pa'nai Cadg. Heneg This appeaL '5‘. ‘ Ccunse! fer We Sfcne/appenenf submifs 1m? presen? is a case where. *rhe respgndgnh’accusgd has made exfm judicigi wnfgssign bzfgre- ED: Sing?! (PW—Z) and Kglumm (PW-4) and Therefore on ma? basis alana rwpanden’r/accused oughf f0 have been ccnviefed; He farmer submifs mg? on accounf 9f issuance ef ferdged efmehmen? Grder made by The. respondent number 0f persons were harassed wad even one of ‘The empQoyees namely Surendre (PW—3) had gene Tn take The charge 0f his post 6. On The ether hand, counsei fer The respenden? supper? ifhe impugned judgment and submi’rs thm‘ impugned gndgmeni is in eccerdcmce wiTh mw and There is no inf§rrnify in the same. He ‘submi‘is tho: ingredienis of The SecTion 468 of The lndione :Pena! Code in parTicuiar SecTions 24, 25, 415 <31 463 of The} i i Vt §Indian Penai Cede are nc‘i a‘rirmc‘i'ed and ihei‘efore, ihei H respondent/accused cannot be convicfed for fhe offence under 1 l Secfion 368 of the Indian Pena! Code. He furfher submits ‘Trncn‘ a complainant DD, Singh {PW-Z) in, paragraph 5 of his cross- ‘examinaTien has sTaTed ThaT aT'Ter seeing dispuTed signaTure, , ' he cannof say Thm‘ “rhe same is me aspy of his signature or no‘r. 1 if i L \ 1 l ‘ 1 1 i . ‘ ‘ V i i , 7. Heard caunse! for Thg purifies and perused the materiai avaiiabig on recarq. 8. B R SamkHhari (PW-1) m me "eievan? Time was warkma as Elechon Superwsor' and wa$ posted a? RgJnnndgacn has stm‘ed Thcn‘ he knows The signa+une of D D 5mm (PWJ) and when 'rhe cfer'k Sukhendm had shgwn him ore ardpr' km has ldgnjlfled Thaf me same has nm.‘ been signed by DD. Singh (PW-2). ‘ 9. 1w: Sing‘b (PW—a) Ems 5mm mm an 19.44%4 shamng his signa‘rur‘e, ene dacumam was issued however, in The said decumenf his signm’ur'es wgre not mare. He has sfcd‘zd Thai he: had caiied The respgndenf/acaused and he has admitted fhe fqcT Tha‘f he has prepared The said dacumsn? and has committed mistake and has sought for pardon However in the i phass-exgminmicn he has stated that qff‘ér sse§ng dispm‘gd signmur‘e, he cannot say thgt fhe same is the capy sf h§s sEgnaTur‘e or- not 107 Surendm (PW-3) - cier‘k has stated that after receiving the order he has enquired from the Panchayat Officer and also f from DD. Singh (PW—2), however, be. Singh (PW—2) has ram ‘ permitted him to jein‘ ii‘ After due epereciat’m of the ewdence evciiebie on *reoor-d the Court below had arrived to a conriusion that tne prosecution hes not been abie to prove its ease beyond gii reesonabie ’dou’bts, and therefore the resoundent as entit for- acquittai. i r~~~x x #1 ‘i: } i f , I i [i i Wm ca 10. Af'l'er' hearing counsel for The pam‘ies cmd gaing Wmugh The evidence avaiiqbie on record ané being yery much censcicus cf The existing iegai pcsi'iion The? in a case {against acquiifmi if Two views are passibie. an The basis of The evidence ied :by the prosecuiien and The Tris! Caur'? faking ene View feveumbie m the accused, reversicn of The findings of acquitmi by fhe appeiiete (Icur'i’ Taking file ciher passibie view in‘re es.sidemi'ien, is n9? permissibie in iew, ihis Court is {if ‘ihe View iha? the judgment impugned acquiiting the resgendeni i/ accused af The Qffence punishabie under Semen 4é8 9% the Indian Penal Cede, is jus’r and pmper' and daes net caii fer any interference by_ihis Caurrt V a $ 11. Fer ihe reasons aforemen‘iianed, There is na meriT in The pkesen'l' case and The same is dismissed accardingiy. sdl / ‘ i /Pf\€\nkei Diwakev 3 d uge DI-