HIGH ¢ouRT OF CHHAmsaARH ATgILAsPug criminal Revision Nm545 of 2007 Manharan La! Kurra Slo $hri Naravan Pfa d (we. aged “beat 37 years Rf Viiiage Salkhan Tah — Nawagarh, Distt.Jan}gir—Ch mpa (C G) Versus Non-applicanm ‘L State of Chhaitisgarhi Thmugh-$(H=0hs Paiica Statiaa-Shiwaa‘inarayars, Distt Janjgii-Champa (C G ) 2, Lakhan Lai Sic: Shn Chhabiiai‘ Santa aged about 5a yeas‘s 3K Prannath Sh: Dhamram Kashyagj Aged amui 39 years Kalika Prasad slo 3hr: Badri Prasad Agad abow‘ 39 years Non-applimnt N0. 2 ta 4 are Rio iliiiage a $aikhali, Tah—Nawagarh, Distmanjgir— Champa (0G,) (Revision under section 397 read with Seation 401 of CLP‘CK) $3: Hon’ble Mr, TaPi Sharma,J, Agplicant Compiainant Present: Mr! Jeet Patel, ccunsel for the applicant. MrRavindra Agrawai, caunsei for naniappiicant Nai. i Mr.Somnath Verma, counsel far non-aoolicants No.2 and 3. ORDER IORAL {Passed on 25 February, 261 a} i.» This is criminal revision at the insmnce 0f private pally against the judgment oi l\) acquittal dated 20 9 2007 oassed by the $ession5 Judge in Snecial Seasions Caee No 172106 whereby learned Seseions Judge has acqmtted the respondents of the charges of Section 3 (1) (x) 3 (1) (XIV) and 3 (1i (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and $(zheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Mt 19$9 (for short ‘the AGt 1989) Learned counsel for the applicant submrls that the Court belew hes not considered ihe evrdence suftiment for conviction of non-anplicanls No 2 to 4 and thereby committed Illegality Heard. on admission. 4.-.. ~ ; 4 On the other hand learned coumel for non—appHcants No 2 to 4 eupportad the tudgment lmpugned and submits that the Coutt below has rightly acqumed non-apphGants No 2 to 4 of the aforesaid charges I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pemsed the judgment- lmpugned and record of the Court below. From oerusal of the ev1dence of complainant Manharm Jagat Kurre (PW-1) r Bharat Lal Kashyap (PW-23, Narayan (PW-3) and Kotwar Pun: Des (PWAX it . _ n aopears that oresent non-appllcants No2 to 4 have oonstrtuted amount: rommittee and they have demanded certain doouments from the apptieent which the appllcant has not supplied and lodged the report against non-applicants No 2 to 4 that Villagers have boycotted the applicant at the Instance of non-applicants No 2 to 4 and even Kotwar Pum Das (PW-4l hae announced in mike that Villagers have boycotted the applicant The ewdence .i of Kotwar Pun: Das (PW-4), who Is resoonsmle person reveals that at the Instance of Kalika and others he has announced for boycotting of the applicant He himself is responsrble person he was not bound by Illegal order r . of the parties but it appears that he has obeyed the order of the Villagers that Itself amount to offence committed by him lt shows that conduct of thrs Witness ts unnatural“ After appreciating the evrdence available on record the Court below hast t reached Into conotuswn that the ewdence adduced on behalf of the prosecution ls not sufficient for convnotton of non—applicants No.2 to 4. On olose scrutiny of the evidence, l do not fmd any ground for interference in the judgment impugned in exercise of revisional jurisdictionr Consequently, the petition is liable to he dismissed andit is hereby disrnissed O' at the motion stage itself, @ -2_ ©Mv‘R