(ACCU§§D) Kisunram @ Kishunram Sahu, aged about 26 years, Son 9f Late Shri Bisahuram Sahu, Resiiient‘ 'o’f Viliage— Parsada Joshi, Ponce s:a£iony Rajim', District — Raipur (C.G.) V gRIMINAL pkggag‘gna (AMEngugnn ACT. zgio HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ‘Acquittal Aoneal No. 140 of 2011 APPELLANT (Victim) RESPONDENTS Champalal Sahu. Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and anather. Shri Roop Naik. counsel for the appHcant Shri Q. Aziz, Panel Lawyer fo' the Stab SWGLE EENCH : HCNSELE $HRI PWSHANT KUMAR MISHRA,.J; ORAL ORDER (30H 1/201 1) The accused has been acquitted from the charges under Section 294, 506 (B). 323iand 325 cf LP.C. on the ground that the statements uf prosecuticn witnesses cannot be believed as ihere are serious contradiction in their statements. ‘ (2) Learned counsel for the anceiiant referred to the statement of PW 2 Champaial and PW 9 Yaduram to argue that they have ctearty stated before the Court that accused caused injury on his left leg Srmrlarty PW-9 Yaduram m his exammatron-m-chref has stated that the accused assaulted Chamoalal on hrs lett 'leg On perusal of these two statements It aopears that allegation of assault made bv the accused has not heen mentioned in the case diary statement of PW-2 Chamoalal and PW 9 Yaduram (3) Admittedly, Chandrakant, Sharadram, Champatal (present appellant) and Loknath have been tried under Sections 302 and 323 of l‘P.C. for committing murder of Bisahuram, father of the present accused. (4) After perusal of the record it appears that judgment is based on pure appreciation of evidence. tn the matter of Union of tndr‘a Vs. Ba! Mukund and Others reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 Hon’blevSupreme Court has held that judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed only on the ground that another view is possible. (5) ln view of the above, this Court does not ttnd any sufficient ground for entertaining this acquittat appeal. t r. Sd//« (6) Accordingly. i is dismissed. Prashant Kuma‘r Mishrat Judge