IN THE.HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF WHAT5.SGAW AX BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. <~)^ ^ / 2010 (S.B.1 APPLICANT : Av.°ff-:"n^ w^JS^ .** ,-. •ss-"".. ^ '". ..\-<'l f^"''"',*& ^.^ ^<'" ^s "\^ A .*••' t..<9' Motiram S/o Sukhlal Satnami, Agsd about 52 years, R/o Baloda Bazar, P.S. - Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPON&ENTS 1. 2. Sanga Prasad S/o Bislal, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village Purani Basti, P.S. - Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.6.) Shyamratan S/o Dhanwa, Aged about 61 years, R/o Village Purani Basti Baloda Bazar, P.5. - Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.6.) Hariprasad © Harilal S/o Shr-i Sadhram, Aged about 52 years, Occupation - Asst. Sub Inspector, P.S. Korba, Distt. Korba-(C.£.) Prembai W/o Late.Sewakram, Aged about 71 years, R/o Purani Basti, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.6.) MEMORAN&UAA OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 (4)OF'CObE OF 3. 4. CRIMINAL PROCE&UREa. ^ y^ ' "^ ^^ y >,Q' \ •• 3URT OF CHHA Justics Pritfsksr Di' '64 of 2010 r^ ^T- ^t1' •-^r Ttff' Aftotiram srsus d others. Shri Anii Sinoh RaiDUt. counsei for th®ciDoiicsnt, v; r" ' f —" —--~ —=- - •• ...... .....^ ^. -RANDUM OF TO .^h-31^* ?lsr .J?^nV" '^:^S^B'> ^ a^ta *. ^ •fc ^ yf.^* S^^^'y^t^^ ^Tth 178 (4) OF THE CQ&E_QC,CRIwlN<AL.i>i<0£E&UR r^ p ss ^s^ r& .u* L... ^, (07.®.2010) Prese.nt petltion filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Cr'imina! procedure is directed aofflnst ths itTiouaned order dated 12.1.2010 passed by Judlciai Magistrate, First. CSass, BolodG BazaT i" Criminal Cose No. 948/2009 whsreby the learned...court beiow hc.s acquitted the respondents for the offence under Sections 294 and 506-3 of the Indicn Pena! Co.de. Srief facts of the caae are thot on 12.12.2000 a smpiaint cc.se was fiied by the sppijccnt against the respondents praying thot they be conyicted for the offence under Sections 294 cnd 506 (par't-II) of the Indian Penai Code. According to the petitioners, on 28-5.2000 at about 8 om ali of a sudden the non-appiicants stared demolishin9 'his wali •of threshinq fisld ond o.s soon a.s he co.ms to know about the so.me, he Reached on the spot and preyented the respondents . for r>Qt doing the scsme. He has stated tho.t at that point of time o.!l ths re-spondfests h.we started abu.sin9 him and h.ave also threatened him. Complainant has ajso stated that sBSSB 2 .;sa?s?" immediately after the incident, he lodged the writtsn "eport on 28.5.2000 but tili fillng of the complo.int, no case was registsred against the respon< complaint cr-ose. occaslon for 'odqing the 3. In support of its cose, the compiaincBit got recorded his own s+otement and statement of one Khorbehrjn. 4. After dus aDDreciotion of the focts of comDiGJnt ond thg evjdsnce, !eo.rned court' below has acquitted the rsspondents. Counsel for the pstitioner submits that c-ourt beiow ho.s wrongly opprecio.ted the evidence GS adducsd by the complainant. He submits that delay in fiiing the compia'nt has ajso been explained by the compiair'ant by saylng that earlier report was lodgsd before the Poiice Authority but QS no action was to.ken by ths outhority he had approached the other -<* cuthority. He submits that finding as givers by the court bejow is totaily perverse and'' respondents ought to haye been convicted by the cour't beiow. f- I have heard counse! for ths parties and perused the mo.terio.1 avo.ilabieon record. 6. Fr'om the evidence of Motirc!m (PVV-1) and. KhorbGh.rJn (PW-2), it is appsr'ent thot thsre. are iT'o.terial contradjctions and omissions in the same. Even these two witne-ssss are not consistent in moking o.ilegations. In the complo.int, it ha-s been stated by ths coniplaino.nt that- accused persons were demolishing wal! of threshirig fieid whereas 'm his court state.i'n8*'it he h.os stotsd thot Qccussd/ressondents i.vere cuttina the tree fo" which thev were crevented and on Qccount of which dispute arose. Khorbo.hpin (PW-2) hos stated that Ba!lSli!:l BBBB ^&^ai ^'% both the parties were abusing each other and this witness has not even disciosed as to wh.at abusive language wa.s uttered by tne respondents/accused. All these Gspects haye been duly considered by the court' bslow whi!e passin.g the impugned judgment of acquittai. 7. After hearing counsei for the partias and aoirsg through the evidence awilable on record and being very much conscious of the existing iegoi.! position that in o. ca.se agoinst acqultts! if two views ore possibte on the basis of the evidence !ed by the prosecution and the trial Court tcking one view favourabie to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittd by the appe.Hats Court toking the other possible v'ie-w into consideration, is not permissible in law, thls Court is of the view that th.e judgment impugned acquittjng the respondent/ accused.of the offence punishable under Sections 294 and )06-B of-'the Indian Penal Code, is ju.st ond proper and does not co.l! for any inter'ference by this Court. For the reasons aforerT'entioned, there is no mer'it in ths present ca-se and the. sairse is dismissed accordingly. Sd/'- .. ^^sw