State of Cinliattisgal‘ VERSUS nt/Aused o) y K9 § APPLICATION R GNT OF LEAVEEQ APPEAL wD- g ECTIGN 37s 3 AN!) MEMQ OF A??? AL UNDER SECTIO ’ 3 or um cums or uuMlNAL Pwcwum 197 31a 3* ‘. Sheudayal,’ Agéd aboti£f42 ’éa'rs Sl'o Hasati‘a‘m Chami io VilL Kama, R Dab mstt. Jamjgia'! ~Chai'npa , _ h aacc ‘ '. 4S w ’ FO RA NER S V Y‘ gr’ - 3 R S hm HIGH‘COURT OF C‘HH’ATT!SGVAR‘VH AT BILASPUR Single Benc Hon ble Shrl Ra eshwar Lal Jhanwar J ~ QC” AgpeaINo.“ or 2009, g State of now Chhattisgarh VGFSU$ Sheodayal JUDGMENT Post‘for pronouncement of Judgment 92 -03-2Q10 Sdl- R.L. Jhanwar V Judge 97 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acq. Appeal No.14/2009 SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar APPELLANT : State Chhattisgarh. Versus RESPONDENT\ : Sheodayal, Aged about 42 years, S/o Hasatram Chandra, R/o Village Kansa, P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir—Champa APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 (3) AND MEMO OF APPEAL U/S 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Appearance: Shri Suryakant Mishra, PL for the appellant/ State. Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, counsel for the respondent. J U D G M E N T (Delivered onZLO32010) t 1. The appellant/State has preferred his appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.04.2002, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti (C.G.) in Criminal Case ‘No.1628/1998, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 342, 323, 324 and 506B of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 01.09.1998 accused Sheodayal Chandra called complainant — Santosh Kumar to his house on the pretext of making disc connection and in closed room, the accused assaulted him with a disc wire and further saying that he is having illicit relationship with his daughter, therefore, the respondent assaulted the complainant. After assaulting the complainant, accused also threatened him that if he will disclose the incident to anybody, he will kill him also his father Fay and brother. After that, the accused left the complainant and complainant Came to his house andkept mum for three days. Thereafter, he narrated the incident to his friend namely Virendra P.W.4. Then Virendra in turn narrated the incident to the father of the complainant. Then, the father of complainant i.e. Chandrabhan P.W.2 enquired from his son about the incident and after this his father reported the matter to Panch. Thereafter, a written report EX.P.1 was lodged by the complainant in police {station Dabhra. Santosh Kumar was sent for medical examination. Statements of Witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and necessary seizures were made. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 323, 324, 342 and 506B of the I.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti. The learned A.C.J.M. framed charges against the respondent under Section 323, 324, 342 and 506B of the I.P.C. and read over and explained to it to the respondent who abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication in this Case . 4. The learned Magistrate after evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, acquitted the respondent of the charge as mentioned above. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the trial Court and impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the .State/appellantiargued that there was ample evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution against the respondent and despite that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the respondent of the charge as above. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, I shall examine the evidence available on record. Learned 3 lower ourt has acquitted the espondent on the grod that there re iscrepancies in the statement of the complainant — Santosh Kur .W.l, his father — Chandrabhan Singh P.W.2, Shyam Kumar P.W.3, Virendra P.W.4, Jivnlal P.W.6, Devideen P.W.7 and Manar P.W.8 and their statements given before the pole. h ic 8. It is evident from the statement of Santosh Kumar that on 31.07.1998 respondent Sheodayal called him to his house but as the complainant did not go to his house again on 01.08.1998 he was called by the resondent whereupon he went to the house of respondent. Respondent closed the door from inside and assaulted him by cable wire. He ustained so many injuries in his body. The respondent also threatened him not to disclose the icident to anybody and also got one letter written by him (complainant) and also tried to press the neck of the complainant. Anyhow,' the comlainant came to his house but did not disclose the incident to any or two das. Thereafter, the complainant narrated the. incident to Virendra Chandra who in tum narrate the same to the father of th complainant. After that, report Ex.P.1 was lodged. In cross—examination the complainant has stated that Ex.P.1 was written y his father ad he put his signature on that. In the report he has not stated that o hich part of the body he sustained the injuries. He also denied the statement given to police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. vide EX.D.1. He has stated that he had not given any statement to police at the portions marked ‘A to A’, ‘B to B’, ‘C to C’ and ‘D to D’. After perusal of the statement given before the police, it is clear that he did not narrate about the incident as to how he was called, for what purpose he was beaten, by means of which he was beaten and also about the threatening issued to the complainant by the respondent. But R.K.Dubey, Investigating Officer, has stated that complainant has deposed that portion in his statement EX.D.1. In this way, the main contradictions about the incident finds place in the evidence. C r un a d ma P a , p s n p f y d e b n n w 4 9. Chandrabhan Singh P.W.2, the father of the complainant, supported the evidence of the complainant P.W.l but he did not Witness the incident. He was only informed by his son and according to that he has deposed. Shyamkumar P.W.3 has stated that on 03.09.1998 Chandrabhan called him and narrated the incident and Santosh also showed his injury. He has also deposed that he has not given the statement before police EX.D.2 and has also stated that the house of thevrespondent was surrounded by 5 to 8 feet wall containing wooden ‘batta’. Virendra Kumar P.W.4 has deposed that on 30.08.1998 he met Santosh at that time respondent Sheodayal came and told him about the fault in disc in his house and wanted to get it repaired by them. But Virendra Kumar was not able to go there and complainant went to the house of the respondent. On 03.09.1998 Virendra Kumar met with the complainant and the complainant narrated the incident and then the father of the complainant was informed. This witness also denied that in EX.D.3 he has not given statement as marked as ‘A to A’ and ‘B to B’. In this way, he has also contradicted the statement given to police and in court. 10. After perusal of the evidence of above witnesses, it is clear that what they have deposed in Court, have not stated before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied all main points which related to the assault caused by the respondent to the complainant in their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, their evidence is not reliable. On the one hand, they have deposed in Court that respondent assaulted the complainant but in police statement they contradicted the same. No doubt Dr.N.P.Mishra P.W.10 examined the complainant and found nine injuries. In cross-examination, Dr. N.P.Mishra has stated that injuries No.1 to 7 found on the body of the injured could be caused by lathi and only injuries No.8 and 9 were caused by wire. The complainant himself did not state as to on which part of the body, he sustained injuries. The complainant has only stated about pressing of his neck. In this view of the matter, the ”x \Q w»-~» MMwJm statement given by the Doctor and the complainant is not co— relted; therefore, the evidence of the complainant is not reliable. 11. After perusal of the evidence adduced y the prosecution, it is clear that omplainant did not state as to on which part of the body he sustained injuries. No explanation was forthcoming why he lodged the report after two days. There are material contradictions in the evidence of above witnesses given before the police and in Court. The police ave not seized any letter which wa ritten by the complainant at the instance of respondent. There are inimical terms between the respondet’s family and complainant’ family. It apprs that the respondent was falsely roped into the matter because his daughter was in love with the complainant and complainant was prevented by the respondent by not doing so Learned lower Courthas rightly disbelieved' the evince adduced by the prosecution because there is material contractions find place in the evidnce as ell as in the statement before the police and has also disbelieved the report lodged by the complainant after two days due to fear. 12. In an appeal aainst acquittal if two views on the prosecution vidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one iew favourable to the accused persons, then it wil not be permissible for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other possible view on the prosecution evidence. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any such infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal which may warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal. 14. In the result, the appeal by the State being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge a b c h s w n s ea . de e w g e V l