•a—^^ ^ieTte^'--^ ^ HIGH COURTpFCHHATnSGARH,BILASPUR mVISION BBNCTI: HON'BLE SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB DB8HMUKH fis HOH>2BLB,SHRJ__RAJESHWAR LAL JHA^WAR, JJ. APPBLLANT Criminal Appeal No. 1601/1996 State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) ' RESPONDENT Versus Sunder aMas Sudershan, S/o Siikalu Bhatra, aged 31 years, R/o Mohpal Barai, Police Station Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (M.P.) APPLICATON U/S 378 (iii) FOR LBAVB TO APPBAL AGAINST AGOUITTAL AND ALSO AN APPS-AL U/S 378 W OF CP«P.C. E Presesit: Shri Pravin Das, Dy, Govt Advocate for fhe State/ appellaat. None for fhe respondeat. ORM-JUDGMENT (DeHvered on 02.07.2009) The foUowing Judginent of fhe Court was deUvered by Dilip Raosaheb Deshsxfciikh^ J. Heani. 2. This crimmal appeal pertains to year 1996 and is Usted today for final liearmg. It arises out of fhe judgment dated 2,2.1996 passed by the leamed II Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur ini Sessions Case No. 11/95, whereby the respondent Sunder alia.s Sudershaii was acquitted ofthe charges under Sections 294, 436 & 506 -B ofthe IPC. 3. Shri Pravia Das, learaed Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State b^ subinitted at fhe very outset fh.at he would not,in a position to pomt out aiiy illegaMty or pen^ersily m the finding ofacquittal recorded by the leamed II Additiona] Sessions Judge. 'v' ^.^- l -2- g) 4.1n view of fhe siibmission, we have perused tbe record of Sessions Case No. 11/95 wifh utmost circuBispectiou. We find that fhe testiniony of Goverdhaii (P.W,-1) relating to setting on fire of his tea-stall by the respondent SLmder was not corroborated by uidependent witaesses P.W.2-Marigal, P.W,3- Lakheshwar & P.W.S-Pooraa Smgh. Jasmau, a veiy material witness who had chased and appreheuded fhe respondenf at the tiiae of occurrence, was also not exaiaiaed by fhe prosecution^ There was an ta.ordiaate delay iu lodgiag fhe FJ.R. by Goverdhau (P,W.l) siace FJ.R. of fhe occiirrence dated 3.12.1994 was lodeed on 6.12.1994. ^ ^—^ 5. In vie\v of the facts aad circunisteiices, we are of the considered opmion fhat fhe view taken by fhe leanied II Additional Session Judge, Jagdalpiir is a possible aad reasonable view of the evidence on record aad, tiierefore, we find no reasou to take a different view ia this appeal, 6. The appeal is wifhout raerit wliich is accordiagly disiaissed, Sd/- j DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh I Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge '.'