^y^-^-^v^^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU^EATBILASPUR CHHATTISGARH t.yi'"""......,^ sl"°" M^GF-&. N0. 1 f. OF 2065 2^03 APPLICANT : APPELLANT SbTi »•••** \.^^^^ ^'^ ,0.^.^ :"^'1( ^ll -^l 'NON-APPLICANT RESPQNDENT Cr. A. No. QF20Q5 State of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, Durg (CG) VERSUS Samaydas @ Jugu S/o Bhagirathi Satnami, Aged about 42 Yrs.(At present) R/o Satnamipara, Berla, PS: Berla, District: Durg (CG) ick" APPLICAION FOR^€rRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 OT AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. ^ A... @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Jlustsce Pritinker Dlwaker Cr.!Va.P.No.16of2009 APPLICANT RESPQNDENTS Accused State of Chhattisgarh Versus Samaydas @ Jugu. Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, P L for the State/applicant. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 378(31 OF THE CODE OF CRJMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 ORDER (23.11.2009) Heard on admission Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Durg in Criminal Case No. 489/2003 whereby acquitted the respondents of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 452,323,506(8) ofthe Indian Penai Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that F!R (Ex.P/2) was lodged on 14.11.2003 by the complainant Mehtarin Bai alieged in it that she was living as a tenant in the house of Baiiram Satnami and on the date of inddent her husband has gone to attend official duty and when she was coQking food the accused entered her house and asked her what shewas cooking. And it is alleged that thereafter he started abusing the compiainant and aiso assaulted her. 3. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that the court below has committed a serious error in awarding acquittal to the respondent/accused despite there being sufficient materia! avaiiabie on record calling for his conviction. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses including that of the compiainant. One defence witness was also examined. Statements of the respondenVaccused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure in which he has denied the charges leveied against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 't- 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiaJ available on record. 6. Mehtarin Bai (PW-1) though has supported her case there is material omission and contradiction in the statement. In the FIR she has alleged that it is she who was cooking food, whereas in the Court statement she has stated that her daughter was cooking the food. Further in the FIR it is alleged that the accused has entered the house in search of a ball whereas this part is omitted in the Court statement. So far as the criminal intimidation is concernedthough this has been alleged in the FiR but in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure no such allegation has been made. Dr. A.K.Sinha (PW-5) has also not supported the prosecutlon case and likewise Lakshmi Bai (PW-4) has also made different statement in the Court. The entire material has been duly considered by the court beiow while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. After hearing counsel for the applicant and going through the evidence available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittai by the appeilate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissjble in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquittjng the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable under Sections 452,323,506(8) of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above factual and legal position, 1 do not find any reason to interference with the order impugned. — 9. The petition faits and is accordingly dismissed. 1 Sd/- 1 Pritinker Diwaker 1 Judge ^