f^/ . ''; • .. • -• ^^^•'""•'•'(/i/'^. •• '.. ".^:.,.. .^ ws 3^-";:m-9N?^@|gT::iTOTgT. i "*-' u' shuk •MlchA ~~s..' .^ ^^^ ^'"w .'®Stf?-->-..•••.':..'->' Rt^^rf-^^tq^-^^S^^ .r?^ 1^^3rTqtT-ft%,95CT(^<'lT5-^?!^ 1-991 * SFT^rf^ Bitft^ ^PTTiS ^ ^-j '; B^,il.991~<> A :' , • . 3rr^¥/3ft]Er?rre(f:. .wq-y^i ^TTW • : Tg ?; -s...: lilSSS^SSS^ a fwy.TO'li"l / -'^(W-' I. ^t.'^mnTT^^ftTrT ^T'i raur ?rMT, - ' 3^1 19 CTTcT, HT. ?)^?5T / . '. .„' '• . ^y • ; • ' . . ' 2. ^yrTEi 'qreg fiTtTr iTftrm •q'T^q'.,jy 45 HTFT, OT'f^fslrg?^-....,';^ . ^ •.'-;: 3. ll^. 3^ ^tf, f^,N^.^r^,J? .2 5 MPT fN, Pitii"ttn-<rar?'ra ! ., . i J ST^f qT7% •F^fTiftT ^PT f^'"iT?r' 1% Sfepfa; yr7T'.37SJ3J ^ 'i" '".:"~~ "•'—'' ~~'"-"—-.-•————'— ——— •?ef eNt^'cfrft" ii -pTfer S) -ffe[?s. arrciTrfti^ 's^t s^-wrT-: ' ^. '• • '' '' '' 3 78^1 j w4Qt90??0, 1S73.J . , •, , :3]TT?TEl BfrFTO''ffTT 379 .ttTC-rfN' gS'-ft'£iT-?T I ^•t HJ&H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Sfrgle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Just-iee Pritinker Diwaker Crimlnal Awee\ No. 414 of 1991 APPELLANT The State of Madhya Prade-sh Versus RESPONDENTS D. Krishnacharya<& others. Shri Akhi! Mishra, Qy. 6.A. for the State/appeilant. None for the respondents. APPUCATION FOR 6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 {3) OF THE COE>E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The present appeal arises out of the judgment o.nd order dated 12.7.1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First C\ass, Sukma in Crimina! Caise No. 610/1983 acquitting the respondents/accused for the ajleged offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indion Penal Cod®. 2. Brief facts of the case o.re that on 4.10.1983 when an attempt was made to shift 17 pieces of wooden plank of teak wood, the same was noticed by the Forest ©uardS.C. ©upto. and then it transpired thort- it is the respondents/accused who had cut ^hose tress, which were standing in the ©overnment land near Chirpati Temple. After investigation on 19-10,1983, FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against the accused/rsspondents. \ 3. " ln suppoi<of its case, the prosecution has examinsd as many as 9 witnesses. "Statements of the respondents/accused were also reeorded under Section 313 of th®Code- of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the chorges tevelfed against them and pleaded innocence and fatse impiication in the case. S"l,«Ifc.ll!»' -.y^. •^. '%. 'ta ,g6-i- ,^ @ 4. By the judgmsnt impugned the court below has acquitted the respondents for the alleged offence punishable under Sectio" 379 of the Indian Penal Csde. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that though ther®is enough evidence available on record but yet the court- beiow has erred in taw in acquitt'ing the respondents/accused. He afbmits thot a!l the trees were removed from the ©overnment land ond then an attempt was made to transport- those trees and, therefore, th.e respondents have committed the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the mat'eria! available on record. 7. The prosecution has Lrtterly fai!ed to proye that who put the hammer mark on the said wood and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is ths accused/respondents who have committed the theft. None of the witnesses has seen the respondents cutt'ing the trws or even bundling the scme and then put the hammer mar'k. In absence of such material, it wi!! not be safe to convict the accused/respondents for the offenc? under Section 379 of the Indion Penal Code. Moreover, the incident is said to hwe taken place on 4.10.1983 and despite court-'s notices, there is no representort'ion on behalf of the 8. After due appreciation of the evidence avaitabte on ^ record, the Court below had arrived to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been abte to prove its case beyond atl reasonable doubts. the respondents are entitled for acquittal. 9.. Afterhearing counsel for the the evidence available on record and porties andgoing through being very much conscious ^' ','i-^' '-.•^~y of the existing Segal psition that in a coise against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourabie to the occused, reversion of the findings of acquitta! by the appellort'e Court taking the other possibte view into considercrtion, is not p'ermissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not cal! for any interference by this Court'. 10, For the reasons orforementiohed, there is no merit in the pre^nt case ond the same is dismissed accordin9ly. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge D/-