^•••'•^•-sj'^:. ":',.-';...,':^-:,' '^^7."^'^-^^<tt^~^^^^^&^.^'^'I3'^S^>:"C^^V^'^'<^'*c ^ ^v ^ ~ .—". ~. ^ f^^^_J-^^ ^^' ^ ., _ ^ IK sm w"£'^ -^ .S@S2-fiE.^&aXA^KlA.iea.'At,,jaBM.R3B» '^ .'.% % ^s^ ^3 ^Z_^f i APPI.IGAKE :BBSE6Na»S -t^ 'Sia-tie: C:.M.P»; »s,;:';;.'' •^' /' :2^,''Ratefpaa.-S/®):Xttsfaa;l.;,Soaad, B.12^.1yrs.-;,' • ' \ '.••^" ^ 2.'' •PteswaB,'S/o,;Aa<}JLr-®oaBd':1. : /- ged.:25'5CKs.^,!:.,^;;1'^.' ' . " ,, '; -..'.~JZ".^.^3^." 'e Safcinaa ehaiaaeli, CP.S • Gharaaa Mstt:.. Bas'tsap AiPPLIGftTXQH S'afQB.A.m*:;^ EEASB.Te :EElt .ABEEAt.^B/S.S'TBf.sl 71& AMa.'CaKm:N&I.':AE&M.'Wsl.i7S<iaA}-.m^ ;: i?.;1 AGaBITTAI, OE"3>Bt.!KE@> SKS.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [SB: Hon'bie Mr.Printinker Djwaker ,J. APPELLANT State of M.P. E VERSUS Rahipal and another. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy.GA. for the appeilant/State. Despite issuance of S.P.C. to the respondents, none appears for the respondents. Shri B.D.Badgaiyan, who is in the panei of High Court Legal Services Committee, is appointed as counsei to represent the respondents. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO FiLE APPEAL U/S 378 (i) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 378 (iiii CR.P.C. AGAINST THE ACQUiTTAL OF THE RESPONDENTS ORAL JUDGMENT (24.02.2010) This appea! arises out of judgment and order dated 20.08.199.1 passed in criminal case No. 369/1989 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for the alleged offences under Section 341 , 323 and 354/34 of the I.P.C. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, an F.1.R. Ex.P.1 was lodged on 15.05.1989 by the prosecutrix (P.W.1), aged about 38 years alleging that on U.05.1989 at about 8.00 A.M. when she was going to hauier mill for milling paddy, where the accused / respondents have apprehended her and caught hold of her hand and pressed her breast and thereafter sexuat favour was sought from the prosecutrix. She has further alleged that after the incident she has scolded the accused / respondents. 3. in support of its case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Statements ofwithesses were recorded under Sectlon 313 ofthe Code ofthe Criminai'P'focedure (for short 'the Code') in which the accused persons denisd the charges levelled -against them and pleaded their innocence and false imptication in the case. Statement of-..3akharam (P.W.8), eye witness of the incident, was recorded after 3 days from the date of incident. & 4. After hearing the parties the triai Court has acquitted the accused ,' respondents of the charges as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the State. 5. Contention of the learned State Counsel is that on the basis of material adduced by the prosecutlon, the Court beiow ought to have convicted the accused / respondents. He submits that by giving a perverse finding, the Court below has acquitted the accused persons and has not reiied on the testimony ofthe prosecutrix (P.W.1) and eye witness Sakharam (P.W.8). ' . On the other hand, !earned counsei for the accused / respondents submits that the judgment impugned is strictiy in accordance with !aw and it has come in the evidence that there was oid enmity between the prosecutrix and the accused persons as the proseeutrix used to suspect the accused persons of practicing witchcraft. He aiso submits that even the father of alieged eye witness i.e. Sakharam, has previous animosity with the accused / respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 8. Though the prosecutrix (P.W.1) has supported her case in the Court by saying that as to the manner in which the accused/respondents made an attempt to outrage her modesty, however, she admitted that the mother of accused Puswan is possessed by some divine power and she used to suspect that the accused/respondents used to practice witchcraft. She has aiso stated that before the incident, she had abused the accused / respondents and when she was hurling abuses accused Puswan was present. She has also stated that when the incident took place her bangies were broken but no such recovery has been effected by the prosecution. Further, from the statemsnt of Sakharam (P.W.8), alleged eye witness, It is ciear that his father was having some dispute with the accused persons. From th&.r^&ord, it aiso appears that the F.I.R. was lodged after 27 hours and the diary statement of Sakharam (P.W.8) was recorded after 3 days and for that np sufficlent reason has been assigned for thls detay. 9. Considering the entire evidence, it wouid not be safe for this Court to convict the accused / respondents. Moreover, after due appreciation of the ff'' :1 ^,..sffsto, ^ Eiti''i'5'3"tt R ^s^'./ ff' evidence, the Court below has acquitted the accused / respondents of the charges as mentioned above. 10. Thus after going through the materiai available on record and bein; very much conscious of the existing iegal position that in an appea! against acquittal If two views are po.ssibie on the basis of evidence !ed by the prosecution and the tria! Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is ofthe considered opinlon that reversion ofthe findings of acquittal by the appellate Courttaking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissibie in law, and therefore, the judgment impugned acquitting the accused / respondents of the offences under Section 341, 323 and 354/34 of the I.P.C., is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. SA'- Pritinker Diwaker Judge