ApDJJcant ComDfainant HI6H COURT OF €HH/mTS@ARHAT BILASPUR Criminal ftevision No.446 of 2006 Bhodho ^u W/o Shouktkil Occajpation - i^our, Aged ^w^^^ ye^^^^^^ Viiloge Kotiirliya, &^papG^ Stotjon ; Chakroidhar Nagar, Nst ; Raigarh-CC.a) Non-QDDlJcants -.^,,-:..: ...',;.-;';%'':-;.^':—, .^-- Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarfi Ilirough^^^^^ y bistrict Mflgistrorte, f^igwh, (>^ Rai90Th-(C.a) .^ i''i'i^]i^ii~i * 2. Ramu @ Ram Aytor Agrwral, S/oj^nno Lal AgronwaJ, Aged about 54 yeaps, IVo M<diapalli, P.S.^haknKlhw NGBga^ c|st : Raigarh-(C.&.) 3- Subhya^hchandra 6oel, S/o PtoBiina Lal Agrowal, Aged about 48 yeaita^ S/o s Sujrathi 6ali, Daroga ^xro, ^J^ Dist: Raigarh-CC.^.) (Revision under sec^ion 397 read with Sect-ton 401 of the Cr.P.C,) ? SB: Hon'bleMr. T.P. Sharma,J. Present: : ...•••.^•f- Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for the flpplicant. Mr.Ashish Shukla, ^vemment Adwcfft®fer ^e Stwhs/resptNiden'b .1; ORDER (OMU yassed on 24th February, 2010) 1. This is crimind revision at the instanc®of the priyate parly egainst the judgment of acquittal dated 27.5.2CK)6 pflsse^l^ Ihe ^?^ l^aigarh, in Special Co^e No.46/2003 wherel^ tiie i^cwl Jyd^ ^ acqustted respondents No.2 and 3 of the charges of Sections447^ 294,^ 506-B and 323/34 of th®Indian Penal Code opd Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 0>re^ntion of Atroaties) Act, 1989. -2-- 2. I haye heard learned counsel for the parties ond perused the judgment impugned and record of 1fie Court below. 3, Leamed counsel for the appilcant submits fhat the prosecution has adduced syfficlent evidence agalnst respondents No.2 and 3, but the Court beiow has not considered the same <wd qcquitted respondents No.2 and 3. 4. On 1f$e olfser hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment impugned^ 5, From peru^iS of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it appears that there is dispute relating to the !and between one Dinesh Xumar Koka and prcsent respondents No.2. and 3 and the present q)p!jcont/compialnant member of Schedyted Tribe came to th.e. spot wlth a'-vlew to defend tfie rights of Dlnesh Kymar Koka, then some sncident took place. 6. After providing opportunity of hearing to tiie parties, th@ Court.below has acqultted respondents No.2 .and 3 on the ground that there is much different between may true and must true. .Jhe finding of the.Court beiow is on evidence and !aw, I do. not find any ground for interference in exercise of inherentjyrisdjctjqn. 7,. Conseqyently, the revision is Siabte •to be dlsmis^d and It Is hereby dismissed. T.P. Sharma Judge