DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,JJ. CORAM: Agglitiant. Resgondents Cr.M.P.No. 716 of 2010 Saguna Bai Chandrakar, wife of Iate Rambilas Chandrakar, aged about 4O years, r/o. vikllage Kodwa, Post Dadhi, P‘S. Dadhi, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (CG). Versus 1. Sunil Chandrakar, son of Lachchhi Ram Chandrakar, aged about 22 years, r/o. Village Kodwa, P.S. Dadhi, District Durg (CG). State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham. iication for leave to file a ea l under Section 378 2 virtuall with g’roviso to Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 A P resent : Shri Ajit Singh, counsel for the petitioner. (Passed on 16‘“September, 2010) Per T.P. Sharma, J. Heard. Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant is hrd on the question of grant of special Ieave to appeal under Section 378 ORDER (3) Virtually with proviso to Section 372 of the Code of ea Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Code”) against acquittal of the respondent No.1/accused person vide impugned judgment dated 31-7-2010 passed by Sessions judge, Kabirdham in Sessions Trial No. 53/2009, whereby the Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent No.1 — Sunil Chandrakar son of Lachchhi Ram Chandrakar under Section 302 of the IPC. Leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal filed on behalf of private person is not maintainable in terms of Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C., but the order of acquittal may be challenged in appeal by the victim under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in accordance with proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has adduced the evidence relating to last seen theory and recovery of weapon at the instance of the respondent No1/accused, recovery of blood stained clothes of the respondent No.1/accused from him, court below has ignored the aforesaid evidence which were sufficient to convict the respondent No.1/accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 3020f the IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence 'of present appellant - Saguna ‘Bai, wife of the deceased (PW/6 ) and evidence of PW/7 — Jeevanlal Chandrakar, son of the appellant are sufficient for drawing inference that the deceased was in the company of respondent No.1 just before his death and the respondent No.1/accused has not given any explanation that he parted the company of the deceased. ln absence of any such explanation, the only inference could be possible that the respondent No.1 was the person who had committed murder of deceased Rambilas Chandrakar. We have perused the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the court below and the judgment impugned. As per statement of PW/6 -— the present appellant — Saguna Bai, on the date of incident, her husband left his house but did not come back and she was informed by her daughter that the deceased was talking with the respondent No.1/accused near Markande Chabutra. PW/7 Jeevanlal Chandrakar, son of the deceased has clearly deposed that in paras 2 and 3 of his evidence that at about 6.30 his father was sitting with the respondent No.1/accused and was in the company of the respondent No.1/accused thereafter his father came to his house, stayed for an hour, took meals and thereafter he left his house for taking Gutka but did not come back. This statement clearly shows that accused/respondent No.1 was in the company of the deceased and thereafter he was in the company of PW/7 Jeevan Lal — son of the deceased and his other relatives in his house and thereafter he left his house for taking . Gutka but he did not come back. At that time the deceased was not in the company of the accused/respondent No.1, therefore, the appellant has not offered any expianation that when he parted the company of the deceased. If the evidence available on record relating to recovery of weapon i.e., iron pipe at the instance of respondent No.1/accused and blood was found on the same is considered, then also it would not be sufficient for drawing an infeen that th present accused/respondent o.1 used the same rce e N wap for ausing inry s it is not supported by the medical eon c ju a vidce and it h not bn proved that the blood found on the een as ee weapon of offence was of th same group that f the eceased. e o d Th w even en me erefore, if e take the idce together, even th the sa would no be sufficien for drawing inference that te responde No.1/accused has committed murder of Rambiias Chandrakar. Th n a ru es e trial Court o close sctiny of the evidence of the witnses xined b e prosution against the accused erson found eam y th ec p hat their evidence fell shOIt of establishing the abov charge t e against the respodent No.1/accused pern. After considering all n so the aspects f atter n i bsenc of clinching nce, the o m ad n ae evide u b e apla . usa cort elow acquitted th pelnt/respondent No.1- On perl of the ipued dgnt and copies of th staments o the mgn jume e te f witnsses, we ar of the opinion that the findings recorded by th e e e tra Crt leading t acquial of he respondent o.1/accused, do ot ffer from any infirmit -whatsoever warranting any n su y interference. We do not find any ground: to interfere with appeal against acquittal of respondent No1/accused person. The petition filed by the petitioner/complainant fails and is hereby dismissed. t t h nt il ou o tt t N Sd/— Sdl- R.N.Chandrakari T.P. Sharma judge ' Judge Raju