Singie Bench IN ‘THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Chm—v mmg “1% No. 20 n (f Cri. A. No. 2005 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh APPEILLANT through the Police Station House, Civil Line, Biiaspur [C.G.] Versus 1. Munna alias Umwdm Singh, S/o Prakash Gond, aged 29 years, R/O Jarahabhatta, Bilaspur [C.G.] 2. Brajmohan Dua, S/o Sitaram, aged 48 Yrs. R/O Jarhabhatta, Bilaspur [C.G.] 3. Chandrakali, W/O Atmaprakash, aged 45 years, R/O Jarhabhatta, Bilaspur[C.G.] 4. Durgesh Nalini, S/o Atmaprakash, aged 20 yearsm, R/O Jarhabhatta, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur[C.G.] 5. Nilam, S/o Atmaprakash, aged‘18 years, R/O Jrhabhatta, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur[C.G.] APPLICATION FOR GRAN'LOF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 l§l AND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378€|’1IOF THE CODE OF, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. RESPONDENTS it COD. R. (5) 9979/9' Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment acquitte/ddtd. 07.04.2005foassed by Shri A i HIGH COURT OF CHH-ATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No.276 of 2009 State of Chhattisgarh _VerSUS Munna alias Umendra Singh and others Heard. 2. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 7—4-2005 passed by Additional Chief JUdiciaI Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.1512/2004 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charges under Sections 447, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the case of the prosecution F.l.R. (Ex.P—1) was Iodged by Mohanlai (P.W.—1) on 9-3-1995 alleging‘in it that on the said date when he was working in the garden of Advocate N.L.Soni, the respondents/accused who were armed with clubs and rods came there and the accused Brajmohan assaulted him on his head with club and when Balloo, Neelam Soni and Nalin Soni intervened the incident, they too were assaulted by the respondents/accused. 4. In‘support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were also rerded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges l co g‘Q ”2— levelled against them and pleaded their innocence. By the impugned judgment the Court below has acquitted the respondents/accused. 5. Contention of learned counsei for the State/applicant is that on the basis of material available on record the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/acCused. 6. It is relevant to mention here that on the date of incident, i.e., 9- 3-1995 a counter report (Ex.D-1) was also lodged by the accused Chandrakali against Mohanlal (P.W.-1), N.L.Soni, Balloo alias Naresh (P.W.-7), Neelam Soni (P.W.-2) and Nalin Soni (P.W.-3) for the offences under Sections 147, 294, 323 IPC. The respondent/accused Durgesh was medically examined vide Ex.D-5 and it has been opined by the doctor that the accused Durgesh had suffered 4 injuries. Likewise, Chandrakali and Santoshi were also medically examined vide Ex.D-6 and D-7 respectiveiy and they too have been found to‘ have sustained injuries. From the evidence it is clear that on account of the land dispute, number of civil disputes were pending between the two parties and allegations and counter allegations were made by them. From the statements of Mohanlal (P.W.-1), Neelam Soni (P.W.- ; 2) and Nalin Soni (P.W.-3) it is clear that there are material contradictions in the same. Even these witnesses are not sure about the exact place of incident and further whether the land in question was duly fenced or not. There is inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses, counter report was also lodged against the complainant ‘ Mohanlal (P.W.-1), injuries had been sustained by the respondents/accused and there existed a past dispute between the r V 1 parties over the land in question. y l i Gcpal .... 3., 7. After due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court below has arrived at a panicular view to. acquit the respondents/accused. l fnd no reason to interfere With the well- reasoned Judgment of the Court below 8. ' Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the State/applicant and considering‘the material available on record as well asthe judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appealagainst acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the Court below taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other ‘ possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the charges under Sections 447 325 323 read wrth Section 34 of the lndran Penal Code is Just and proper and does not call for any interference Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the State/applicant for registration of appeal against the judgment of i acquittal is hereby refused. Sd/ j ’ l j ’l ,- ; ' Pritinker Diwaker v Judge