^>-' 1^// o i9 M'] DB/JSIQN ,c. ssi'/ State of Chhattisgarh Throuflh : The District ?v*agistr3te, i<abirdham, District - Kabirdham (CG) '*'> Manoi Kumar Bhaskar, S/o Baliram Shaskar, Aged about - 22 years, R/o Village Rampa, Thana, - Kunda, District - Kabirdham (GG) Present : Shri AkhiIAgrawal, Panel Lawyer forthe State/ appeiiant. ith (19m February.2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer is heard on IA No.1/2009, a petition for condonatlon of delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer and the grounds taken in the app!ication,we are satisfied that the' petitioner / State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. . ! . ^ 3) IA No.1/2009,therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) oftheCr.P.C., is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Pgnel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent / accused Manoj Kumar Bhaskar. 5) Police Kunda, District Kabirdham aftercompletion Of the investigation of the case registered-on the report of injured / complainant Ram]i Sahu, chsrge-sheeted respondent /accused Manoj Kumar Bhaskar forthe alteged commission of the offence punlshable under SectiQn 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the accusation of his having attempted at the life of complainant Ramji Sahu by causing injuries by means of sharp edged weapon on 19.08.2007. . . 6) Respondent / accused Manoj Kumar Bhaskar abjured his guilt and pleaded faise implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Section 307 read with Sectio'n 34 ofthe IPC. 7) At the trial, the above charaes against the respondent/ accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW/1 Ramji Sahu, PW/2 Khelan, PW/3 Balram Prasad Chandravanshi, PW/4 Narayan Sahu, PW/5 Faguram Sahu, PW/6 AR Sahu, PW/7 - Rajendra Kashyap, PW/8 Dr Salil Kumar Mishra and PW/9 BS Rajput. 8) Respondent / accused Manoj Kumar Bhaskar examlned DW/1 Tulsi in support of his defenee. 9)' The trial Court on a ctose scrutiny ofthe entire evidence ted by the parties heid that though the prosecution could succeed In fSSSS SiSSiWQta 38BBSgil?»ffiSliM; MJBIlSiKStBUBBIKiS^ :^M;!::''^?®Q!'|^'§|iQ|^!A9^is^ls^S(ytU!.^B^ p ^sajje syi jaye spBjed uogeQyiiusp! tsei e 10 BuipioLi 94^ 'iuspiou! 9l)} o} joud iusiiesse sqi IQ siueu BUIMOU)) ioy seffi iueuie|duuoo psjniui si|i sy •'tUejiEsse s^ p euueu 941 ssoiosip pu pip sy 'OS|B lusujaisis Ajeip-sseo ^o Sujpjooej jo 3011! ayi }B 1541 psuiuupe jeyvni 3|-| •IUBIIBSSS aill 10 auieu stji uosusui pu pip (j./d'xa) !4Si.|BN BB43Q i0 BuiDpoi jo euiii su^fs psjniui. 3L|i ysv^ UOQSUIUJBXS -ssojo siq p t;'-ejed ui peuiujpe A||eouo6aieo sey indfey S9 6/AAd -isoyjo 6u|tBS!SS9AU|34i 'iUBUiBiduioo siii Aq psuoiiusai uaeq }GU sey je^seyg jeiunx IOUECT_ pasnooe / }uspuodssj io aiueu sqi yodsy uoiieujjo^ui isjjj 9i|i u| 'iyspiou! 941 o^joyd SIUEU Aq je»seL)gjBtun>i [OUB|/\| pesnooe /luspuodsaj ffiou)) lou p!p nijBS iii-uey VAAd lueuieidLUoo/psjnfui 'Ajpsuiujpv (i.l •js^seqg J8uun»foueyy pasnooe / luspuodssj Duiuinboe ui pue nyBS ifiuey [,/fiAd lueureiduioo psjnfui jo eouspiAs eyi oiiuBisM snp SUIMB }ou ui psjrfa sey ynoo jBUi sy^ \ew p9n6jBAnU9U18ll9AJ3AMBn|9UBdP9Uje9|'|e/V\ejBV|!Lj)lVy4S (OL 'SOGZ'ZO'Z l psiep lustuBpnf psuDnduii epiA iqnop plusuaq uuiy • SuiMB Aq jB>|SByg jeiun>| foueM pasnooe / luspuodssj psninbog '3JOJ9J84? 'unoQ |B!JI syi •seynfu! asoyuo jotjine eui SBAA je^sEqs jeuin>i {ouen pssnooe / luspuodssj leqi BuiqsiiqBise p UOL|S ||8j souspiAS uounossojd 84} '^ooz'80'6 L uo s3E|d >|QOI qoiiiffliuepiou! sq} ui. ssuni'u! psuieisns nijes ifujey psjnfu! leyi Buiysiiqeiss S^^;S^^?:'?1S ^^il;;^^^^;: ^i^!^Mii SBUI iKffiilBr II ••'»° Y "> •^~-- £ s padma 12) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lav/yer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondent / accused; the evidence led by the prosecution at the tria! in general and that of injured complainant PW/1 Ramji Sahu in pari:icular and the above mentloned broad features of the case, we are satisfled that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of respondent / accused Manoi Kumar Bhaskar do not suffer from anv infirmity whatsoever. 13) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the petition filed by the petitioner / State under Section 378 (3) for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent / accused Manoj Kumar Bhaskar fails and is Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^. 1