^' 6 %'"^ ^•^^1^^^.^.^:vn. IN THE HIQH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. cr.Aeees! Ne. /2QQ^ APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 378 F31 OF THE CODE OF CRZMZMAL PROCEDURE MEMORANDUM O^CRININAL APPEAL UNDER SEC710N 378 nl OFTHE CODE OF CRZMINAL PROCEDURE APPLICANT APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh, through SSation House Officer, Poiice Station: ShJvrinarayan,Distt. Janjgir-Champa {Chhattisgsrh} VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDEHTS ^Mfc^ } d on Shri....^. <^l.l<:?.'jofe rw x»»»f .Ad¥<Wftte R.to-D.R.(J) 1. Ramsai Yadav, aged about28 years, S./O Chedilai. 2. Babaiu alias Karun Yadav, aged about 20 years, S/0 ChedlSa! 3. Chediiai, aged about 52 years, S/0 Hiralal Yadav. Ai? R/0 Baderiyapara, Kharad, Thana : Shivrinarayan,Distt.: 3anjgSr-Champa[C.GJ Ig ^ ^ HIOH 'COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B3LASPU.R SB : HON^BLEMR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR Acq.A. N0.49/2009 APPSLLANT State of Chhattisgarh Wersus RBSPONIDBBIT8 . • Ramsai & Ofhers MEMO OF CRIMINAL APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 37311} OF THB Cr.P.C. Appearaace: Shri. VaibhavGoverdhan, P.L. forfhe appenao.t/State, None for the respGndent ORDBR (11.12.20091 The present appeal is dn-ected agaiiist the impiigned judgraent dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magisti-ate First Class; Jaajgir ia Cr. Case No. 1043/2005 acquittmg the respondents of fhe ofierice under Section 325/34IPC. 2. Case of the . prosecutioii is fhat upon - receiving niformation from Deveudra Kuinar Pandey, on 6,11.2002 entdes were made ia fhe Rojnnmch.a Swzha agaiiist uuknown persons for assaultiag P.W.-l Koinal Prasad, The entiy was made ia the J?o??zam^fea .Sanfea by Imii because Koinal Prasad becaoie unconscious after sustaiiiiag iajuries. Thereai'ter vide Ex.P/4, FIR was registeredon 3,1.2003. As per the PIR, on 6.11.2002 at about 6.00 a.m. when the complainant naoie.ly Koinal Prasad was go.mg towards the p-ond .of the v.illage t.o take batli, accused Ramsai started abusiag .him. It is alleged that two ofher accused persons naiiieiy Chhedilal and Bablu have also reached on tlie spot aiid tb.cy had also assaulted him witli hands axid fists as. a result ofwhich he becsmie unconscious. \^ 3, In order to prove fhe giiilt ofthe accused, prosecution has exainiiied as niaay as seven witaesses. Statement offhe accused were also recoirled inider Section 313 Cr,P,C. ta whi.ch tb.ey denied the charges leveled against fhem aad pleaded iiinocence and false iaiplication m th.e case. 4. Contention of tiie counsel for fhe appeIlaat/State is that ou fhe basis ofraaterial available on recordy the court below ought to have convicted the accused persons. 5. P,W.-1 Konial Prasad has though alleged tliat on fhe date of iacident he was assaulted by fb-e accused persons but he does not allege that he was assaulted by the accused persons by any weapon. This witoess further aUeges tiiat on account ofassault he has sustaiaed fracture on his rib. P.W.-2 Devcharan had adxaittedly reached on the spot after the nxcident aad fhough fhis witness had seen the accused persons wifh the victim but in. the Romamcha Sanha he does not say so. P.W.-3 Devendra Pandey is a hearsay witaess aad the iafbrmatlon was given to him by Devcharaa P.W.-2. He also adraits that when the fact was disclosed to him. naiae of the accused persons was not disclosed. 6. Though fhe victmi was niedically examined by Dr. N,Prasad (P.W.-6) aad he has stated that there was no extemal injury on the body ofthe victim, He fiirtlier stated fhat he was unconscious aiid therefore was not in a positiou t.o converse. This witaess has no where stated as to where aad what io-jury was sustained by tlie victim, Further uo radiologist has been exas3ii3ied by the prosecution. 7, That the entire evideuce has been elaborately considered by fhe Court below and tlie Court below has arnved to a particular coiiclusion of giviag benefit of doubt to the accu&ed/respondeuts while acqiiittimig theni. ^^ V. 8. I fiad no reason to iaterfere -in ttie judgment of acquittal particularly the view taken by the court below. It is a setUed position of law ia relation to cases agaio.st acqiiittal. In a petition against acquittal tf tvvo views are possible on tfie basis offhie evidence led by the proseciition aad the trial Court takiag one view favoured fhe accused, reversion of fhe findiags of acquittal by fhe appellate Court takiag the other possible view iato consideration is not pennissible ia law, this Coiirt is of the view tliat the judgnient mipugned acquittmig the respondents/accused of tiie offence under Sectiou 325/34 of fhe IPC is just and proper. In fhe result, tlie appeal faUs and is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ ^