r— v _ y \\\\\\\§\\F\§\§\§\§\§:\§;\M\M - x’ m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABmgagE Ben K‘ KL .mgvaw /~_—"‘\f @ré/ r/Qf/Jl5/@ MI /\B CRIMINAL APPEAL No. / OF 1997 t4 [ c.. CRIM NAL CASE No.l5[% OF 199 ‘ APPELLANT : The state of Madhya radesh - Versus RESPONDENTS.9 1. Pgafulla Kumar son of Shrl P D $1roaia aged 5'7 years f 2 Ramesh Diwit son of 5hri Laxmlnarayan Divan aged 30 years, '4’ } 3. Urvashl Thakur, wlfe of Rudra atap Singh / aged 50 years 47 A Lekh Chand @ Phul Chand,son of Mahavu‘ aged 28 years, _ A11 residents of Bhadur Charm Para Kanke‘r Distriet Bastap AFFLICATION FOR LEAVE To APPEAL UNDER SECTIoN 37s (3) AND CREMINAL AFPEAL UNDER SECTION 371(1) CRIMINAL FRQCEDURE com AGAINST THE ACQUITTAL 0? THE RESPONDENQLACCUSED ‘- s 7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Acquittal Appeal No. 03 of 2009 The Staie of Madhya Pradesh APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS! ACCUSED Prafuna Kumar and others.‘ a Shri Praveen Das GA for the appellant/$tate. . Shri Anil Smgh Rajput cou‘ngel :fof tHéil respondents/accused JUDGMENT (05102009) Thvs appeal Is directed against the impugned judgment dated 23 :0 1996 passed by the Addmona! Chief Judlciai Magistrate Kanker m Cnmmat Case No 1031/1991 acquutung ’the _’ respondents/accused of the offences punishable under sections: 451 384 and 506-3 of the indian Penal Code 2‘ Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 9.12.1991 complainant Gaagan Das (PW-2) lodged a written report Ex. P-1 stating that on that day respondents/accused forcefully entered’his‘. shop and compelled him to execute some agreement in favour of his ‘ , landlord Rudra Pratap Singh to the effect that he'had willfully vacated the said shop in lieu of Rs. 25,000 having been received by ' him. lt is alleged that when the complainant refused to execute the agreement asked for he was threatened of his life lt is further. “1,. alleged that on account of fear he unwulmgly wrote the agreement ,7 and thereafter he was thrown out of the shop With all the articles stored therein. 3. After completion of investigation charge sheet was laid before the court below. The prosecution in order to establish its case ‘ . examined as many as 11 witnesses including the complainant - CRlMlNAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 371 (1) OF THE CODE OF CREMINAL PROCEDURE x @ Gaagan Das (PW-2). Respondents/accused also examined one witness - Jeevan Singh Verma (DW-1) in their defence. 4. The Court below after appreciating the evidence avaiiabie on record acquittedthe respOndents/accused of all the charges levelled against them on the grounds mentioned hereunder: (a) Narayan Das (PW-6), Bhagwan Das (PW-9) being real brothers of the complainant and Mahesh Kumar (PW-8) — being his son are the interested Witnesses and that they have neither seen the stamp nor have they proved as to under what circumstances the agreement was written. (b) All the above three witnesses thbugh alleged to be present at the time of execution of the so called agreement, had not protested the same, Which shows that they being closely related to the complainant are the interested witnesses. Independent witnesses namely Narendra (PW-3), Gokaran Lal (PW-4), lndira Odnere (PW-5) and Ayal Das (PW-7) have also not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused on the basis of the statements of Narayan Das (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar (PW-8) and Bhagwan Das (PW-9). He further submits that merely they being closely related to the complainant, their evidence cannot be ignored. He further submitted that the Court below has fallen in grave error in acquitting the respondents/accused on the basis of statements of hostile witnesses. (C) 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that while recording acquittal, the Court below has taken into consideration ail , @ the relevant documents and therefore no interference with the we" reasoned judgment is calted for. He submits that in fact Narayan Das (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar (P-8) and Bhagwan Das (PW-9) were not present at the time of execution of the so called agreement and they are the tutored witnesses. He submits that even the agreement said to have been exeted by the accused persons and the complainant has not been produced by the prosecution. 7. While acquiing the respondents/accused the Court below has disbelieved the evience of Narayan Das (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar (PW-8) and Bhagwan Das (PW-9). From perusal of the record it is apparent that these witnesses have not seen any document having been executed between the parties. Further the evidence of Narendra (PW-3), Gokran Lat (PW-4), indira Odnere (PW-5) and Ayai Das (P-7) makes it lear that no such incident had ever taken place and thus they have not suported the case of the prosecution. Ciose examination of the materiai available on record leads this Court to the conclusion that none of the witnesses cited by the prosecution e seen he so called agreement having been executed between the parties and thus the Courtbelow‘has rightly rejected the testimony put forth by them. Moreover, it is a settled law hat if no manifest iegal error or perversity is visible in the judgment of acqittal passed by the Court below and the ground on which it is based s reasonable and plausible, it should not be subjected to disurbance i appeal. 8. hus the aforesaid exposition of the entire factual and legal scenario leads this ourt to an inevitable conclusion that the judgment of acquittal has ben passed by the court below after undertaking an arduous and judicious exercise over the material available beore it and therefore its subjection to dislodgment would mar the intert of justice. 9. Resulntly, appeal being limbless to stand is consigned to dimissal. Judgment accordingly. Sdl- ‘ 'x. Pritinker Diwaker Judge . ,_ f . r a W cu tt d a W c p hav t t u i t n T C e f es ta s