IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATEAT BILASPUR fCHHAmSGARH) CR. M. P. No.-s)i^ _ pF 2010 ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. OFL2010 APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S. - Ranitarai, District-Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENJ^^A GaJanad @ Gaja, ^^^^^S( Agriculturist, Ranitarai, ^^ cv District-Durg (C.G.) *••• APPLICATLON_ FQR.- GRANT_ OF _LEAVE_ TQ _APPEAL _U.NDER ~7 ~~ SECTION 378 I3LAND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDEJR ./" SECTION 378 (IfOF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Singl®Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Cr. M. P. No. 914 of 2010 APPELLANT State of ChhattisgoT-h Versus RESPONbENT Gajanad @ ©qja Shri Praveen Das, Dy. 6.A. for the State/appellant. APPLICATtON FOR 6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTION378^ OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OR bER (05-01-2011) Heard on admission. The present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dnd order dated 29.7.2010 passed by Special Judge, Durg in Special Case No. 55/2009 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC -and Section 3(l)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2009 F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was lodged by prosecutrix (PW-2), aged about 9 years, alleging in it that on the same day al- about 12.30 in the afternoon when she was bathing in the village pond, respondent/accused approached her and proposed to teach her swimming and on thot pretext he has pressed her breast. Prosecutrixreported the matter to her father and thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged, 3. So as to hold the accused/respondent 9uilty, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in support- of its case. Statement of the accusfid/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he ,-••-<(>, 3^/ D/- has also stated that her father had instructed her to state in the F.I.R. that the accused/respondent had caught hold of her and, therefore, she had stated the same. Smt. Bisan Bai (PW-1) - one of the villager has also admitted the fact thot there is some dispute between the respondent/accused and the family of the prosecutrix. All these aspects have been duly considered by the court' below while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. After hecring counsel for the appellant ond considering the material available on record as wett as the elaborate judgment impugned and being very much conscious of the existing legat position thort' in on appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court- taking one view favourable to the occu^ed, reversiori of the findings of acquittal by the appellate- Court- taking the other possible view into considerotion, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent / accused of the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(l)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste <& Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the appellont for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittat is hereby refused.^—- Sd/'- .^rt0^aker JudSe