HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. CR.M.P.N0.60612007 PETITIONER The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Ofticer, Police Station- 1 Kotwali, Mahasamaund, District . Mahasamund (CG) Versus RESPONDENT Hemant @ Hemanu @ Eman Puri s/o Kaushikpuri Goswami, age 32 years, Rlo vill. Dongaripau, P.S. Kotwati. Mahasamund. Distt. Mahasamund(CG) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37813} AND MEMORANDUM OF APEEAL UNDER ' SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 Present : Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate for the State/petitioner. ORDER (24m September, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, c.J. Leamed Govemment Advocate is heard on !.A.No.1/2007, a petition for condonation of delay in tiling the petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) 0n due consideration, i.A.No.1!2007 is allowed and the delay in tiling the petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby condoned. (3) The ieamed Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquitta! of respondent Hemant @ Hemanu @ Eman Puri. vide impugned judgment dated 23'“ Juty 2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in S.T.No.35/2007. ' (4) Respondent/accused Hemant @ Hemanu @ Eman Puri, was tried under Section 436 of the i.P.C. on the accusation of setting the house of complainant Jethu Ram Rawat on fire in the intervening night of 10‘“ & 11'“ of January, 2007. (5) At the trial, most of the prosecution witnesses including complainant PW-5 Jethu Ram did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. PW~5 Jethu Ram, in his statement in the trial has categorically stated that he named respondent/accused Hemant @ Hemanu @ Eman Puri in the F.l.R. on account of suspicion alone. (6) The trial Court in this state of evidence was lett with no other option, but to acquit the accused of the charge under Section 436 of the l.P.C. On duerconsideration of the submissions of learned Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of respondent/accused Hemant @ Hemanu @ Eman Puri; the evidence led by the prosecution at (7) ... @ the trial; and the fact that even the compiainant PW-5 Jethu Ram has not supported ihe prosecution case at an, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, whereby the respondent was acquitted by the trial Court. (8) For the foregoing reasons, no case for grant of leave to appeai against the acquittal of respondent Hemant @ Hemanu @ Eman Puri is made out. (9) The petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed r 7/1 CblefJusuce . 'Sdl_ . . . r l sUNILKUMAR Judge smHA r’ ,1” » w“- l