:Sia$SSi "SSSasw,..--" ^^&jlgl;^ IN THE HIGH COTJRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH /, , ^ .- , ^ ^ ^Mfr C No..^.t;?:.!..OF 2003 Cri. A-No ............OF 2003 r'T ApoeUant The State ofChhattisgarh Through Station House OfGcer Police Station: Navagarh, District:Durg(CG) VERSUS Non AooeUant/ Respondents \.*^""^ Rajkumar S/o Khem Singh Age about 50 years, R/o Surki, P.S.Chowky: Dhadhi, P.S.: Navagarh, District: Durg (CG) ^' oc» ^9<^:A^l ^yv APPLICAIQNFCT.^ANTOFLEAVETOAPPEAL UNMRSECTION 378^ AND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDERSECTION 378 0) RESPECTIVELY OF THE CODE OF r.RTMTNAI.PROCEDURE 1973. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AJ' 6ILASPUR Singla Acgyitt-aLAppeal Np,44_of2009 .APPELLANT TheStateofChhattisgarh RESPONDENT Shri Prayeen Das, 6oyt. .Advoco^e- for* the State/appeliant. Shri C.R. Sahu, counse! for the respondent. APPLICATION FOR SRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PRQCE&URE. 1973 i.12.; With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finalty.;' Present appea! is directed o.gairist the impugned judgmsnt dated 27.8.2003 passed by Judiciat AAagistrate; First Ciass, Bemetara, E)istrict Durg inCrimina! Case-Ho. 4°3/20Q1 acquittin( th&'respondent/accused of the alleged offence punishable under SectiQn 294 & 332 of thelndicm Penal Code. .^ 2. ^ As:per.the cc^e^of the prosecution, awritten report M (Ex.P/33 was lodged by AAalikram (PW-1) alleging in it th.at he is WQrkingds^i;inemanMn^he..Electr!city&ep(rtment.On 15.10.2001 aftep receiyjngiUTstruc|tohs from hissuper'ior cuthority,]he went, to! the- Hoyse 'of :*K^;accused/responder!t at about 1.3p pm tbj J digconfiect^tie'.slec^ic connectipn, however, when he wps trYi?ig|^j te> :pepfiw^!.St8 ;Q^:tGial duty. h% was oibused (indiassault^d by •frhei | accusedXresj3ondent. On. the. basis of th!a^wriften'!''e^ort,':PIIR^' (Ex;P/l)wasregisteped:bythepolice. - . .';!,; . i i!^ ,.i,i ; ; In •'Suppart of ifs.cc^e the prosecution haseXwRin^^sqtfcy jrr as 6 witnesses. Gne dfffence witness Suresh Kumwl^Vyj-I^;is;|t[s9:jj examined^ by the accused. Statement. df the resporKleti'f/ttc®t|^e{ -L^-l xa M -s- was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminat Procedure in which he denied the charges ieve!!ed against 'him and pleaded his innocenceand false implication in thecase. 4. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that there was ample eyidence ayailabie on record to convict the respondent/occused for the offences under Section 294 A 332 of the Indian Pena! Code but the Court beiow has committed a serious error in ignor'ing the so.me and th.ereby awording acquitta! in favour of the respondent. 5. On!y piece of eyidence against the accused/respondent is the statement of Malikram (PW-1), who has stated in his eyidence that when he had gone to disconnect the eiectric connection, he was abused and assaulted, however, this witness has categopica!!y admitted the fact that an apptication was filed by the accused for disconnectionof electric line and only after receivsng instructions from the superior ajthority, complainant had gone to the house of the accused. As per the gtatement of Malikrcmi (PW-1), he has suffered injury on his ieft thigh bystick as he was beaten by the accused whereas as per the statement of Dr. B.S. Keram (PW-2), the injuries sustained by; the injured/complainant cannot be caused by theseized stick. Furt-her it h.as been opined by th.e Doctor thaf onlyscratch mark was there on the thigh ofl the complainant which could not have been caused by the stick. Further there is material contradictions and omissions in the statement of complainant Moiikram (PW-1). All these aspects been duly considered by the court be!ow while passing impugned judgment of acquitta!. have !the 6. After hearing counsel for the part-ies and going through the evidence available on record and being very much conscious of the existing iega! position that in a case against acquitta! if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court- taking one view favourable t'o the accused, reversion of the findings of acquitta! by the appellate Court taking the other possible view ihto consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the Judgment impugned acquitting the respondsnt/accused of the alleged offence punishable under Section 294 <& 332 of the Indian Penal Code, is just ond proper and does not cal! for any interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above factual and legal position, I do not find cmy reason to interfere with the judgment impugned.r ? 8. The petition fails and is accordingly dismi Sd/- priti"kerD,^^ Judge