A W x _ ‘ N .‘Vmxww,w.%x w' f‘gcduR?' :FE" J v E 'lhrl . l\]B)l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. :4 913%‘9 gS/Qf State of Chhattisgarh.,, APPLICANT APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENT Butu Ram, Slo Bodhiram Kewat » Aged about 47 years, Occupation: ~€?:\2§)}if" Labourer, R/O Village : wed on“... ”:E-Egvw»%dvocam . gmw‘ Distt.: Khudmudi,Police Durg(C.G.) Station : Bemetara, m 9"“"’" Accus ; ...... ’ . . . v ' ’ ”a“w‘.“ RVGR T 6F LEAVE To APPEAL UNDER (1)0F SECTION THE 37813) CODE OF ANDMEMO CRIMINAL OF PROCEDURE, APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378“” 1973. f. ' EM I J wa 4£4 'x v HIE . RT QF (‘HHAI i iggWRH AT KfUA‘aPUI-E 5ingie Bgnah : Hera b§e Mr. wwca Pmtmmr Dwgkexr ' Agq. Apgeg! Na. é5 9f E3009 APPELLANT 5mm 9f xiihhmtisgarh . Versus gu‘m Qam gun f d mam Kpwrs'r ghm Akhil Mishm, Dapu’ry Gavemmw? Advocm‘? far +hP $faTe/anpellam‘ ‘ Sim PP Sahu counsel for? RIMINAL AWEAL UNDER SF€TEN 3m (1) OF TH§ CQEE Q? LRL5£E$JAL ?ROLEDUR£ RESPONDENT reaoondem‘ O R D E R {15.@4L.391G) The pmsenir gppgg! arises gut? of thg judgmem‘ Qné oréiér' z 'd'qf‘ed” 22 1? 200% waged bv Addu’pgngi Chief Judigam‘ Mgglswme, BPmemra m Cmrmna Case NO 581/2001 acqul‘r‘mn . .the respondenf/aceused far“ the waggd cfranaas pumshabitz ' - under secfians 457. and 380/511 af the Indian Penal Code“ ' 2‘ Brief fagm 9f The cage em Thar? an Zé§=ZQQI FLR; (ExP-l) was Mdged by Smt Shai; Bani (PW—1) a§ieg§r1g in if fhm on 25.8:2001 a? abeu‘? 9.C?C) pm when sha was séeegaing in hgr ‘ hou3e alang with hem Twa ahildr‘en,'agadabcm 12 years £2 5 year's, she felt Thor samebady i$ “fauching her fee? and whgn she woke up, she saw tha’; the respenrfaentkccused wag making ~ efforf to remove siwer‘ ankQz’r fmm her lag, If is c:§!gged ”that ' v , $heimmeci'aa‘rely cried by cai§ing “Chop-L‘hgr” and mughu‘ haid ‘ of accused/réspandem‘ and ’rhereaffren her naighbbur Aaju ‘ Yqdcw (PW 2) Taganncn‘h (PW 3 Moréhcw‘m (PW—4) ahd Fnou (PW—5% remarked fhgrr and then she Infarmed Thrm 0mm Hue ‘v x incidgm‘. * {J\ 3. In supper? of its case, Th3 pmsecution has examined m many as é w§masse$, Statemenf 9f The resgondgnw’accused wgs alsa remrdgd undar‘ $agtian 31.3 9f mg gadeaf Cr§mim§ Pracadgrg in which he denied fhg ghgrges lgvgHgd againS? him and pleaded innecgnce and faisg implica‘rian in mug cgsaw By thg juégmgm impugned thg 39w? babw has acqui??e.d The respondentfaccused for me aHagzd offences punishab§e' under Sectians 457 and 380/511 9f irhg Indian Pena! Ceée. 5, Counsel for The appaiiunT/Smte submim ma? desgh‘e sufficienf evidence available an record, The cam“? baiew hag erred in law in acquilting The re3pandent/ascused. Hesubmi’l's tha‘l presen’r ls a case where accused/respandenl mughf- mid handedly bu? ye? caurl baelow has acquilfed him. 6. On fhe cfher hand, supporting me lmpugngd judgmgnt, if has been argued by ccunsgl far the respandenf fhm‘ the court below was fully justified in acqui‘riing fhe respandan’r/nccused 4: i l ¥§g§w and there is no iiigggxiéiy in Th3 same. He submii's Thai finding of the court balow cannoi b3 inierfergd with unless the same l are gerver'se. 7. I have hear-d counsel far ‘rhe pnriies end‘ perueed The material available an regard, 8. While acquii‘ring ihe accused/respandeni, ihe ceum‘ belaw has considered ihe smilemenfe of cnmpiqincm‘i Smi, r541: Shailbai (PW—1), Aaju Vaclav (PW-2), Raianlnl (9W—3) and Lniel ‘ (PW-4) and has came m The cenclueian thai' there are material ; conimdiciions and emissiens in The same Even if These smiemenis are read iage’rher, mi qniy vnrieus canime'iiane appeare in the same bu‘i there is clear incqneieieney in ihe ‘ 1 sfatemgnt m? thg wifnes$g$ As per The zvidence of fhg 59mg 0f ‘rhe wi‘messes, inciden'r had mken piace around 300 pm whergas as per The smmments of the, 50mg e’rhgr' witnesws “the incident had Taken piqce amund 11 pm, Fur’rhgr some. m‘ fha ofher witnesses have s’rmgd Hm? hcu$e 9f fha cemplmncm? was locked from inside whereas as per the pmsgcu‘rinn aase, accused/appeHan’r was faund inside the hausa and lock mm opengd by son cf The complainant 9: Ccnsider‘ing ail fhese discrepamies, incnneimencies §n fhe stafemen‘rs 0f fhe witnesseg, The court beiow has arrived To a particular conciusion TO acqui'i 1he responden‘i/accused. 10, After hearing ccunge! far the perfiee and gaing ihrgugh the evidence availabie an record and being yer-y much canscicus of The exis‘ring lega! position That in a case ageing? acquiimi if Two views ore possibie on The basis of The evidence ied by The prosecuTion and The Trial Court Taking one view fovoumbie‘ito The occueed, reversion of The findings of acoLiiTToi‘hg/éfzizhe i appeiim‘e CourT Taking The oTher‘ possible View 'inT/o' consideroTion, is noT permissibie in iow, This Cour‘i‘ is of The View ThoT The judgmenT impugned ocquiTTing The respondenT/ occueed of The offence punishable under SeeTions 4E7 one 380/511 of The Indian Pena! Code, is jusT and proper and does noT coll for any inTer‘fer'ence by This Court 12’ m i 11. For- The reasons oforemenTioned, There is no meriT in’The presenT ease and The some is dismissed accordingly, sdl piwam‘ \ i Priiw‘e‘ Judge I