. x A ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS-PUR (Hon. Mr. JUstice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2570 of 1997 APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS RESPONDENT Phuhkal Singh and others ‘ Shri Akhil Mishra Dy. GA for the State/appellant. None for the respondent/accused CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (5.5.2010) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 15.5.1997 passed‘by Judicial Magistrate First Class’, Mungeli District Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.~183/1984, acqUitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of the entry made in Rojnamcha Sanha FIR‘ Was registered against the respondent/accused‘for an offence under Section 325/34 IPC. It is alleged that on 5.1.1984 at 7.30 p.m. the respondent/accused had ‘ assaulted‘the complainant Kapil Singh with the help of club causing fracture to his wrist. 3. In support of its case, prOsecution has examined five witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of CriminaL Procedure in ‘which he ‘ denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Bythe impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the ' respondent/accused for the offence as mentioned above. Hence the ‘ present appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basrs of materlal collected by the proseeution the Court below ought to have convrcted the respondent/accused for the offence under section 325 ' ; IPC but ignoring the same it has awarded acquittéHo the respondent and has fallen in a grave Iegal error. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6 7. From the material collected by the prosecution it is clearxth‘at the doctor who had medically examined the complainant, has not: been examined before the Court and therefore the injury sustained by the complainant has not been proved. This apart, no effective seizure has been made by the prosecution. Narendra (PW-2) has admitted the fact that the incident had taken place in complete dark. Even the statement of the complainant Kapil Singh (PW-1) appears to be an exaggerated one. Thus, in these circumstances the view taken by the Court below in acquitting the respondent/accused- appears to be'well founded and no interference therewith is warranted. 8. r Thus after going through the material available on record and being ,very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against/acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of - evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting‘ the ‘ respondent /accused of the offence under Section 325 of the lndian Penal Code, is just and’ proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. lt is accordingly dismissed. j Pritinker Diwaker g . l5. Judge ”CC ll