'^SAN "tl-t'Kl '-i;; ;. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR '^HHATTISGARH ftc^.^ ? u "\ ^^ Ll> Appel.1an1 Non Appellant/ Respoadeats :ly' ^si-" .-• ^'*' V" ^ s> M.Cr.C. No..^^'<.OF 2003^ :n.A.No. ............OF State ofChhanisearh Through Station House Ofticer Distt : Durs (CG) . VERSUS 1. Roopram S/o Ramsai Sahu ^-— . Ags : 37 years Occuoation: A^gric.ulture R/o Viilaee : Chilhatitcala. PS : Dondi Lohara, Distt : Durg (CG) 2. Boj Kumar DeshmuUi S/o Kunwar Sineh Age : 28 years. Occucation : Agnculture. Ryo.Village : Kumhalori. PS : Dondi Lohara. Distt : Durs (CG) ^-" Babuial (cii Patel S/o Ram Singh Marar. Age^years- Occupation : Agriculture. S./'o Village : Devri (Parra), PS : Dondi L.ohara, Distt : Dur.g (CG) 4. Rajendra Jain@ Jhagaru S/o p~ Gu!ab Chand Jain, Age 40 years, Occupation: Agricultui-e, R'o Villase Dondi Lohara, PS : Dondi Lohara. Distt : Durg (CG) [^- 3. p- ^! APPLICAION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL ; LJNDER SECTION 378 C3) AND MEMO OF ATPEAL JNDER SECTION 378 ? 1) RESPECTIVELY OF THE CODE OF CRJMINAJ. PROCEDURE. 1973. LJT^LJ ./v^sl, I?ST" /at;S ^E:i..JLJ .AT~TBTf"'.?n''A Sl%^ :^*T° aT? -4 tS'rai is^i . ' Ml&M CUUK! U!" CHMAS IIS&ARM AT 8ILA5PUR • SinQ'e Bench : Honbie Mr. Justies Pritinke" &Jwaker mn?"i J A &. )wa li'i'eLLAN i srate ot Chhattisaorn -<n ^ sfs*-, ^ ^ *t^ ?*a i ~^i\:l, i'"^^ :i .'tss,.*s^t 'a^ t'tj i»i'' i,i RooDrom and others. (^•'"•:'=' Shri Praveen t)as, Dy. &.A. forthe State/appeiiGnt. Sh'"! a.P. Banjare, Advocate on behuif of Smt. HainJca Siddiqui, counse! for" the respondents/accused. ^ ' FOR OF TO APPEA-_yN&Eg SE<;TZON_;378 (3) O^THE.CO&t _OF JUDwEttEN^a (14.02.20115 . • . : •;: The prese"t appsal arises:out of.the !mpugnea,juagmerif; and'iQf'aet'i.dQted 11.8.2003 passed by.Special Judge^ :Durg ;n So^aial Sessions Triai No. 12372002 acauittina:, t^he respondents/accused^ of 'the offences'. pun!sKaJ3,!.3J.3't..na£;r: Sections 427, 435, 447 cna 506 (S) of the.Indian Pe?)fil,:feGe' and Section 3(1) (iv) of the Schsduied Caste <S Schstfujed Tribe (Prevention of Atrocit;ss) Act (for short lthe Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case ore that on 3.2.2002 F.Z.R. (Ex. P-3) was Ipdged by compiainant - Om Prakcsh Singhare (PW-2) alieging that he belongs to Mahar cos*e'•tMc'n comes urids" the category of 5chedu!ed C'aste. Zt is alieged rhoj' on 31.1.20G2 accused/respor'dents have entered his: field, abused ,the iabourer workinq in h's fie!d ana dasr'.oasd his.Lombardo; machine which was beif!<i used fop mak'ng breaks and set the husk on fire. It is further,a!|:eg8d by the compjainant Ihat thie iand in auestion was curchased by him in. ths name of his wife AAithiiu Sidhare on 26.11.2001 in ouction conciuctsa by ths NG!b Tahsifdar. Bosed on this F.I.R.. crime No. 13/2002 was 1^-A.., ^'Y 1 'y / "^y .--;,-i!sa^ ^•^S-S. • ....sSSS^^ regis+ered by the police under Ssctions 444, 426, 435,294 and 506 (B) of the Indian Penai Code against the respondents/accused. After investigation, chaijan was fiied on 30.07.2002 under Sections 447,427,435,294 and 506(35/34 of the Indian Psnal Code and Ssction 3(1) (iv) of the Act. rf> 3. In order to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused tKe''prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in supj30i*t;;:pf its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were aiso'Tecorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 'm which they denied the charaes ieveled agairist tliem and'pleaded their innocence and faise implication ir! the cdse. This apart, witnesses namely R.R. Churendra (&W-1), Diieep Sharma (DVV-2), D". Prarnod Gupta (&VV-3), Shivprctap AAishra (bW-4), 6.P. Tiwari (DW-5), Mannaial Sahu (DW-6), Domar Singh (DVv'-7), Suritram (DW-8), Ruprarr. Sahu (DW-9), •Bhojkumar (&W-10) have aiso been examined bythe defence in t ;. supporf or !TS case. 4. By the judgment impugned the court below has acquitted the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 435, 447 and 506 (B) of the Indian Pena! Code and Section 3(1) (iv) of the Act. i-1ence this cppeal. 5. Hecrd counse! for the parj'ies and perused the materiQi availabie on record including Judgment impugned. 6. Counsei for the Stote/appeilant si.bmits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the courl' beiow ouqht to have convicted the respondents/accused. He submits that ths court below hos erred in law in decidinq the case on the basis of ownership of the iand whsreas it ought to have decided the cas& on'ry on the basis of possassion cf tha INI;: II?i£?il^^tlsil^^ jjarties. He submits that the court be'ow has fupther erred in iaw in deciding the case by giving more wslgh+age to th.e defence witnesses. 7. On the other hand, counsej for the "espondents/accused supports the impugned Judgment and subjnits that the lcmd in question was never in possession of cornplainant Omprakash Sidhare or his wife Mithsiu. He submits fhait it has beer cotegoricdly proved by the defence that the iand in question was owned by Diieep Sharma (DW-2), however, as there was some defauit on the parr of said Diieep Sharrna (DW-2), land in question was auctioned by Nyab Tahsiidar and the same was allegediy purchased by the wife of the compiaincnt however the said auction wos stayed by the Commissiofier vide its order dated 30.9.2002 (Ex.D-3) and in fact the iand never came in the possession of the compiainant or his wife. He further submits that on 26.12,2001 a report was iodqed aqainst the compiaincunt vide Ex.D-4 by Diliep Sharma (DW-2) for iliegd cuttina of certain trees on the same Diece of iand. He furthe;" submits that anothe" report Ex.&-4A was also iodged by Dileep Sharma (DW-2) ago.inst the corrtplainant for commissiori of theft. He further submits that fAithiia Sidhare -wife of ths compiainant, who could have been the best witness for ths prosecution cose, has not been e>OTmined and in absence of her stotement, respondents cannot be convicted for any offence. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai avaiiable on record including judgment i'mpugned. . From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is apparent that the prosecution has utteriy fciled tc' prove thct on 31.1.2002. r-escsands.n'ts/accuas.d have entereri ths iend @ 181SKS'3a»;g^ JEi°ss»i;»!^smiS3B«. ^•'^•--•••^^^--•^^^•^ wgsessed by the compiainant and has also utterly faiied to prove that the respondents have trace passed the land in question. Prosecution has further faiied to prove that the accused/respondents have damaged the l-ombardo machine of the complainont and have also failed to prove that in any manner fhe complainant was threCTened by the respondents." Prosecution has further failed to prove that the lemd in question was in possession of the compiainant. 10. After due appreciati the Court beiow ha: Drosecution has not reasonable doubts, the resp acquittal. ion of the evidence availabie on arrived at the conclusion that the able to prove its cas-e beyond o.ii ondents/accused were entitied for he wo 11. After hearina counsel for the appsliant and considerinq the moteria! availabje on record as weil as the eiaborate judqment impugned and being very much conscious of existing legoi position that in an appeal against acquittd if t views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trid Court taken one view favoursd the accused, taking the other piausibie view into consideration, is not permissibie in iaw and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impuaned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence under Sectiono 427, 435, 447 and 506 (B) of the Indian Penai Code crid Section 3(1) (iv) of the Act of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appea! being without substancs is liable to be dismissed, It is GccordinQlydismissed. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge