IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P. No. ^Qf /2008. ;S"-T::?-i "'ffi-a'i?i .....Slti APPLICANT COMPLAINANT 0/Y.^1 .^r^ ^•"w^ ..•••"';<^".v^ ^y.fA l^s ^- ^ ^;:...^ Santosh Shriwas, S/o. Rikhirara Shriwas, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village Parsada, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Kaliram Kaushik, S/o. Kashiram. Kaushik, aged about 50 years, 2. Lochan Prasad Kaushik, S/o. Kaliram. Kaushik, aged about 35 years, 3. Ashok Kumar Kaushik, S/o. Kaliram Kaushik, aged about 25 years, <'^' \ '-p ^^wss^ ^v ^- ^ '^^.•;?...'••. /^•^ y? / \^ 'Kays*;^ i " ' /e? ^ ^•^- .^'/ ''-'^fn^'y 4. Smt. Kari Bai, W/o. Kaliram Kaushik, aged about 45 years, (wrongly mentioned 25 years) All R/o. Village - Parsada, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C. G.). APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL-AGAINST ACQUITTAL UNDER SECTION_378_[4) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 r?^'^tT^EL;-L .1.:^ iTOF Bersch : Hon'b'e Mr. Justice Pr'tmker Di Cr.M.P. No. 601 of 2008 Santosh Shriwas Koiir'om KausKik & others. for the cpplicant, counsel fc Shri Paras Mani Sriwas, counsf Shri Ratnesh Kumar' 'espondents. APPUCATION FOR 6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 (4) GF THE CO&E OF I5f r"!' (04.02.2010) Heard on admission. Present petition is directsd cgainst the impugned judgment dated 30.9.2008 passed by Judiclai Magistrote, First dass, Bilha, Dis+t. Bi'aspur in Criminal Casa No. 1904/2008 acquitting the respor'dents in complaint co.se for the offences punishable under -Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal 2. As psr the complaint case filed by the applicant/cofflptainait on 10.10.2003. the non-appl'cants who are his neighbours have abused him and his mother and accused Kaliram Kaushik has slapped his mother. 3. In support of its case, the prosecut'on has examined as many as 4 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were atso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges leveled against them and. pleadsd innocsnce ond false implication in the case. "ys^' ^.^ il;SSEWai!SSii§a 4. By the judgment impugned th.e the rsspondents for the ailegsd Sections 294 and 323 of the Indicn. present petition. jrt below has acquitted punishabie undsr Penal Code. l-1ence the 5. Counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosscution, the court- below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused. He submits that entire evidence has bsen overjooked by tha couri- below whiie passing the impugned juctgment of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, counse! for the respondents suppQrts the impugned judgment and submits that the order of the acquittal is in accordance with law because prosecution has faited to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7, I ho.ve heard counsel for the porties and perused the matenal avaiiableon r-ecord. 8. In his court- statement complainant Santosh Shriwas (CW-1) has specifically admitted that neither he wos assaulted by the accused persons nor he was abused by them. It iis atso clear from the comptaint that no injury whatsoever has been proved by the complainant; furthermore, the complainiuit cdmits that his statement recorded under Ssction 200 of the Code of Criminat Procedure is incorrect. Al! these ospects have been duiy considered by the court below while passing the impugned Judgment of acquitta!. 9. After heanng counsel for ths part'ies and going through the evidence ayai!able on record and being very much conscious of ths existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the a 't!i..;4!^3i'. •' SssS^S' prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourable to the accused, reyersion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court' taking the other possibte view into consideration, is not permissible in IGW, this Court is of the yiew that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/' accused of the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Pena! Code, is just and pro'per and does not ca!! for any interference by this Court. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present case ond the same is dismissed accordingly. ^_-.__- Q/- Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge <•)