^f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLESHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Applicant/ Appellant Non-ADDlicant Cr.lVI.P.No.704of2Q11 State of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S. Chandaura, District Sarguja (C.G.) ' Versus 1. Kamlesh Prasad Rajwade, S/o Parasnath Rajwade, aged about - 21 years. 2. Parasnath Rajwade, S/o Duhan Ram Rajwade, aged about 46 years 3. Smt. Amravati Rajwade, W/o Parasnath Rajwade, aged about 43 years ApDficatJon for arant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3)and Memorandum ofAppeal under Section 378(1$ ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973. Shri D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate forthe applicant/State. (Passed on 03ro November. 20111 Per T.P. Sharma, J. 1. This petition under Section 378 (3) read with section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner has prayed for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 19.05.2011 passed by fhe First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Dlstrict Sarguja (C.G.) in S.T.No. 104/2010 whereby Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 302/34,201 S 120 (B) ofthe IPC. .-iAS allt,. ^'y' »^ ~^ Sii: 2. Present leave to appeal has been preferred after 54 daysof its- limitation. 3. Heard on t.A.No.1/2011 for condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal. 4. Judgment impugned, copies of the statements of witnesses and copy of charge sheet perused. 5. As per the evidence of prosecutfon witnesses only articles i.e. ^ielgi bahanga and weighting instruments have been seized from one of the respondent but same has not been identifled as article belonging to deceased. After appreciating the evidence available on record, iearned Additional Sessions Judge has acc^itted. the respondents on the ground that prosecution has ncrt collected the evidence to connect the respondents with the crime in questiqn. 6. On perusal of prosecution evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. We also do not find anyground for condonation of detay in filing teave to appeal. 7. Con^quently, I.A.No.1/2011 is liable to be dismissed and ftereby dismissed. 8. As a result, Cr.M.P. No. 704/2011 stands dismissed. Vijay Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sdf- R.N. Chandrakar Judge