Q IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE C AT BIPUR LAS Cw M » - Saligrm Tiwari S/O Late Shri Kan (Complama ( 0 W, lwan, Age about 64 Years, Occupaon — Agricultrist, R/O — ard N 13, Ramanujganj, P.S. — V % Lm Raanujganj, m Distt. — Sarguja (C.G.) RESPONDENT / O A Mahavir Yadav, S Rambaran, ge Accused about — 60 Years, R/ O — Ramanujganj, Ward No. 13, P.. — Ramanujganj, Distt. — Sarguja (C.G.) ”/ CHHATTISGRH Mere in. d QOF 2007 5! APPELLANT a ji n) 5 7‘’ T V1 tl u @r o S , LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 14! OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST ACQUITAL ‘ ¢? F GH GQéER? Q? {3HHA‘*T33§&QH £{3‘ E>§h£k3§3i§§ {Hmfhk ML Jumca P?i3‘§n%se¥ {Eiwakw}. CLMR MgA-i) a? 25am? Appiicant ' Saligram Tiwari VEISU$ Respondent Mahavif Ya€iav Shri Neera; Mehta, caunseE far the appiicant‘ Shri VKPandey, coutaseE for the raspomdeni. % giagaimn my g am §§ va m auy a§ we? $ecimn 3?$3’£¥ 9f his bi‘ k: ua bfiai§Fi§§ ??G$$Gti§‘$ Heard. 2. Present petition is directed agaimsf the impugned judgment data} 30412006 pasaed by Judicia! Magistrate Fimt Ciaw, Ramamujganj‘ Si‘gulm m f‘a‘miamt Casa No i200’x r‘lsm sg‘m ha cm‘plmw as fiied by the agpacant Saiigram agaimt the respondenilaccused V‘an’wr ar‘d acauxt n ’z‘lm o! mm ChamPS undm' Sechor‘s 14" 323; M9 mf‘qe inman Panai Cade 3. On 11-1-2005 tha camp§aint filed by 1e appzmamt/cempiainané Saiigram agamst the preserei resmndent/accusad Mahavir and 3%30 against ca—accussed Rambg’ti and Ramashan‘mr ailagmg in if. that an 21—1Q—2OD4 “the amusexj pgrgong emered the house 0f we wife bf'the campiaihant namely Makhmaldevi and assaulted her w§§h the means m” axe and due ae a i reeu‘d: 0f whieh) she suetained head injury. e. in support of his case the app§§eant/comp1einant hae exammee‘; ae many 21$ 6 wEtneeses. Statements ef the eed ee’sens were ; aim macrdgd under Sactim L) i2. f3 ita w$k3§fhey cian§ed ihe charges £eve$§3d aga§m$t fnem am‘ wmciej é'heir inmac—me. 3 sieferzgte y1v §mpugned judgment the Court bemw ha5 acquitted the presemt respendent/accused Mahavir and xiv—accused Ramashankar bu? Gem/Iciad the ”o accused Rambakz for aha oyfmr‘a wig? Sect 9% !PC. ~ 2", j A” witneweg iiava ab mew exammad by “'1 3‘9 med pevgm $3M J x k 5. Conientian of ieaametj counse! far ihg appiicami’mmpiaimant §$ mat {m tha basi$ of materia§ avai¥abie an recerd the Caurt heiam: aug‘nt m have ”onv: t d he rasgendwt/acwsed Mahavir. 6. 0n me wher Land iewnea counse! 1W *h omenWwwaed ,Qréing ihe impugned judgmwt argued 'ihai the e a r0? m The "U hugwed wdamer‘t and the samg :s xmneccable ?. Fmm the evidence on recgrd what emgrges i3 that the apgaiicant/cnmp!ainant Saligram am hig wife Makhmaldewi were ihe Eandmrdg 0f the house in quewon Where ihé respondgni/aceused Mahavif was, res§d§rag as ten-am. !t a§sa appears that $0me order wa$ pa$sad by the campetent Caurt for evictima of The re333enzjemj’accmed. ! §s a§§eged that on the date 0f incident, cc-accugad Rambati, Wife “f the raccondent/accused mad a sawed Makhmaldcw With ‘ha bacxaide of the aw ca isino mlury m her twead ihe icdecendent Witness of the mae nameiy karmaledew has cateaowcahv statec that it w a ociv Rambati who had caused the injury and net the other accused. Though in their statemehte $aiigi’em and Makhmaldevi have etei‘ed that the respendeht/accused Mahavir had eeeeuited Mexhmaidevi with ea“ V the hem of dub yet their statements havg net been gupgmerj by the independent witness Nirmaiadevi and? therefere, §i i5 difficwt to beiieve thew statements. Moreover, Dr. Ajay T§r§<§, who has aiso been examined, has stated that-only 1 in}ury wee found on the head 0f Mekhmaldevi and ehemvas compiaéning ef pain. 8. The entire evidence nee been duly eeneidered by the Com? belew while acquitiing the present respondentfaecaeed Mahevii' and Gay-amused Ramaehankar and cenVicting the ce—accueed Rambaii. i find no feason to interfere with ihe weii-reaeeneci judgmen? Os‘ ibe Ceuri beiew. 9. Thus, after hearing iearned couneei for the games and considering the materiai awaiiabie on reoerci as weil as the iudgment impugned passed by the Court beiow, and being very much Conecioue of the existing legal positien that in en appeal againet acquittal if twe views are pessiiole on the baeis of the evidence ieci by the eartiee and the Court below taking one View favoured the accused! tevernion m the iindinge of acquittal by the eepeiiate Court taking the othet possi’eie View into consideration, is not pei'miseiloie in law, this Count ie of the View that the judgment impugned ecquitting the teepondenttaoooeed oi the charges under Sections 14?, 323, 4,49 of the indien Penal Code is inst and proper and does not oali for any interferenoe. Aooordingiy; the leave es eought for by the appiioantfoompiainent for registration et /V anoeai against the judgment of acquittai is hereby refused/7 / Gopa!