PET IT 10W §< x.‘ OLPLAINANT R ESPONDENTS by $m.... ........... .. ,. . § .n w ' w k7 W ii \\9\ \% n‘ w THE H01 'BLE axeH uomvr or‘ cammxsemd AT BILzxspg CRmmAL R Evxsxow mmwgéQm/ZOOZ Santosh Kumar Banjare aged about r/o Dongargarh 25 years son of Kmrbahara, village Kumdatola P.S. Dist’c . Rajnandgaon . 5} 6) CODE State of Chhatt‘isgarh Through- Police Staticn-Special preventicn far SJI‘. S .C . Act Rajnandga‘on . Gend Singh s/o Dhruv Singh Thakur, aged 57 years. U" $111M $/o Jitendra Singh, aged 20 years. Devenéra Singh s/o Gend $ingh aged 23 years. sureQdra Singh S/o Gend Singh Thakur, 2O years. Bhupendra Singh s/0,J’i‘tendra Singh Thakur, aged 23 years. All are resident of village Kumhadatola P.S. Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.0 Dhamendra Singh O AEJUS EI} PER b01\f3 EEIFKINAL R EVI$ION UNQQ 8ECTION AnfOF CRI‘iv‘LINAL PROCEL‘URE ‘x H ‘\ 19 HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER CRRev. we. 580i2002 APPLICANT Santosh Kumar Banjare Versus ‘ RESPGN'DEMTS State ofC.G. 8r. Othsrs. ‘ ‘u t‘ ¥ 1 CRIMINAL REVISION UNDEE SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL- mQCEDvgg ggpearance: Shxi Maiay Bhaduri, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vaibhav Gowrdhan, EL; for the State] msp. No. 1. 7 - > Shn‘ P.K.C.“I‘iwari, Sr, Adv. With $11n' Vinod Tekam, counsel for the rssp. N0. 2 to 6. ORAL ORDER (27.11.2009) With the cqnsent of the pagiies? the matter is heard finally. The pmsent revisicn is dimcted againSt the impggnad judgment datmi 14.9.2002 I passsd by Special (Atrocities} in Special Case No, 12/ 2002 whereby the accusedf respoxldems No. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of The charges 1eve1ed against them under‘ Sections 147, 452., 323134 &. 294,134 of the ludian Penai Code 85 Section ‘3 (1)(10} ofthe SC/ST (Preveniion ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. 0 Proseoution version unfolded thus, on 12. 10.2001 FIR ~~i EXP] 1 Was lodged by Santosh Kumar (PAM—1} alleging in it that as his nephew Narayan had teasexi one Radhika, Wife of Judge, .4. ’i‘ularam, on 1 1. 10.2001 when he was sifring opposite to the 1 ‘ house of his brother Mannu along with Mangal, Punit & Samara, the aoeused persons who were anned with danda/ came there and started abusing his family members. It is alleged that the house of Mannu and Punipwa\sopei\ed by ‘ / . i / the accused persons, entemd the house and had abused and assauited Gendi ‘Baig mothcr of the compiainant. 3. So as to prove the guiit 0f the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Sta'tement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges leveied against them and pleaded innocence and félse implication in the case, u f 4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that. the court be1ow has committed a serious error in awarding £acquittai ‘to the respondents/accused despite there being sufficient «material available on record calling for their conviction. 5. P.W.-1 Santosh Kumar has deposed in the court that when he was sitting opposite to the house of his brother Mannu, the accused persons came there and assaulted his family members and had started abusing them. Statement of Santosh Kumar has been dulyisupported by P.W.-2 Puuit Ram, P.W.—3 Samaru, P.W.-4 Indu Bai and P.W.-5 Mannu. Further, a bare look of the statement of these witnesses reveals that there are material contradictions in their statement. P.W.-6 Savita Bai has not supported the prosecun'on case in its ent'rety and has specincally stated that no assault whatsoever was made by the accused persons. P.W'.—7 Sohadra & P.W.-8 Gendi Bai had also supported the prosecution case. C5 6. From the statement of the witnesses it is clear that the incident had taken place in the busy locality and there were number of independent persons who were present but none of them have been examined by the prosecution except the relan’ves of the complainant. Moreover, the doctor P.W.- 15 Dr. Manish Lal Jaiswal who had examined the injured witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in accordance with law and has not even given the details of ‘. i i 1 the injuries sustained by the victims. He has further stated that the injuries sustained by the victims could have been caused on account of fall. The provisions of Secu'on 3 (_ 1)(10) of the SC/ ST (Prevneu‘on of Atmcities) Act are not atllacted in the present case because none of the prosecution Witnesses has stated that the entire act was done with an intention to insult or humiliate the members of’Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Further the incident had taken place inside the house of Mannu and Santosh ' Kumar and therefore it cannot be said that the piace Where the incident had. taken place was Wtthm public View. A 7. Thus, after hearing counsel for the parh’es and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the exisu’ng legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the nial Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the odences under Sections Sections 147, 452, 323/84 8r. 294134 of the lndian Penal Code 8a Section 3 (1)(10) of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is just and proper. Acconlingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant for registration of appeal again st the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. /_.l l ’§:‘M“"?a’t- j Prit‘mker Diwaker; Judge ,