Singk Bench, coun'rFseshxmmeo VNOTHCATION NO. 996WD‘28 BIC.G./05 AS SPECIFIED IN SWED I&n0FTHE COURT FEESACT 18 ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. No. §$g /2009. /2009. ACQUITTAL APPEAL NO. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station, Newai, District Durg (CG). Appellant: Versus Respondent: Accused: Dewa @ Deosharan,'S/o Chandrika Prasad Dubey, aged about 22 years, R/o Shanker Para, Station Maroda, Police Station, Newai District Durg (CG). APPLICATION FQR‘ GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378’T3LAND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (f) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. "T‘N9 \“es x 3 7 ' U 7. l law in acquitfing the accu$sxif espoxniimi. He subms that by givmg pervsrs€ finding t Court bow has acquitmi i111? raspondsnt. . ave eard counsgel for the parties and peseti he o 1' h h ru { record. 6. Davki Bai {P.W.-, compminal has though maria allegation agajrlst The accuscd/respondent but it appears that there was some dispute etween her and the accused because on the previous night of the incident also the accused had gone to her ple and had knocked the door of her house but she states that she had not opened the door. She also states that during the scume her louse was torn but the seizure witness of the said article namely Bhupendra Kumar (P.W.—2) 85 Nohar Nishad (PAM-3) has not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Further in the FIR it has been stated by the prosecutrix that Nohar Nishad (P.W.—3) had intelvened in the dispute and had separated them but the said Nohar (P.W.—3) had not supported the prosecution case. In his court statement he has denied the statement as made by the prosecutrix. V§ 6. The court below has elaborately considered the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution while arriving to a particular conclusion of giving benefit of doubt to the accused/respondent while acquitting him. It is settled legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences under Sections 354 85 323 ot‘the IPC is just and proper. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge r it he ci i 11 n b ac b