^^•^ THB moH coaror OF JUDICATURB AT vB^ssvm AT J.CJLC.SO.WO WWM\ (Vl^ ^ ^^/^ CMMINAL APPBAL N0, or aooe APPBUANT RBSPONDBNT ;s.,.'.^lt^^. .oGatS State of Chhattisgarh Through:- P.S. Lalbagh, Distt Rajnandgaon (CG) VBRSU8 Rajendra Prasad Panda S/o Bhawani Prasad Panda, aged about 33 years, R/O-M.I.G. C/164, BhUai, P.S. - Supela, Distt. Durg (CG)- p ^ APPUCATION FOR GRANT^r LBAVB TO APPBA2, UNDER SBCTION 378 larAND MBMOItAllOUM OT ABWBAL UNDBR SBCTION 378 (IfbF THB CODB OF CRIMHIAL KlOCaBDCRB. 1973. "? ^^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HQH'BLB MR. JXJSTECE PRETINKER DIWAKBR Acd. A. N0. 52^2009 APP^LLANT StateofChhattisgarh Versus RJBSPONDENT RajeHdra Prasad Panda MEMO OF CmMINAL APPBAL UNDER SECTION 378( 11 OF THB Cr.P.C. Appeas'asiee: Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. tbrthe appellaiit/State, None for th.e' respondent, QRDBR (11.12.2009) The present appeal is directed agamst fhe impugned judgment dated 10.01.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajnandgaon m Cr. Case No. 1686/98 acquittmg the respondent of tfae offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. As per fhe case of fhe prosecution, on 27.3,98, FIR Ex.P/ 1 was lodged by P.W.-l Ram Kripal Sahu alleging m it that on 25.3/2008 when he was attendiag a patient ra his ctmic one person cajoie to his cliaic stating th.at he has a shop at Rajnaodgaon near Kamla CoUege and he provides household articles ui iastaUiuents. After finaliziBg the deal with the accused/respondent, he decided to purchase oixe Godrej Fridge ai}-d gave him Rs. 1500. It is also alleged fhat the said accused had giveu hifR receipt of one Blue star marketiBg aiid on fhe backside of the said receipt, he had Hientioned his naine as Mzikesh Tiwari with his address, 3, In support offhe case, the prosecution has examined as m.aiiyas eight witnesses iacluding fhat of coiiiplaiaaiit. Two defence witaesses have also beeu examiaed. Statexnent of tlie accused was also recorded under Section 313 C'x\P,C. ^ .iii which he denied the ch.arges leveled'against nioi axid pleaded ina.ocence and false iiiiplication to. the case, 4. Contenuon of th.e coiinsel for fhe appelIaD-t/State is that on the basis of evidence brought on record, the Court below ought to have convicted the accused/respondent 5. From the statement of P.W.-l Ram KrippJ Sahu, it appears tliat he had given Rs. 1.500 td the accused but m the Court statenxent it com.es tliat 011 the date ofin.cident he gave cash ofRs. 300 ao.cl cheque ofRs. 1200, Further it has coine ia tlie stateBient that one inend ofthis witaess namely Rakesh was also present fhere aad he had also shown his desire to purchase Luna Moped for which it was decided tliat fhe money would be given later. However in the FIR fhere is no niention of fhis wituess Rakesh by fhe coinplainant It also conies froni fhe statenient of the coniplaiiiaiit fhat on 27.3.2008, when the accused approached him for getting fhe advaiice aoiouut towaixis Luna Moped he was caught hold by fhe coraplainaat and his friend Rakesh. P.W.-6 Rakesh has merely stated that the villagers had caught hold the accused when he camLe ia tlie cliaic of th.e coiaplaiaaat. In his stateinent tfais witness has stated that tiie coinplaiiiaat had given cash ofRs. 500 and cheque ofRs. 1000 to the accused fot purchasiiig Heropuch nioped. 6, From the stafement of tiie above two wituesses it is thus veiy clear ttiat there are several oinissions aiid contradictions aiid fhey are uot sure as to what for fhey are aUegiag against the accused. P.W.-l/complaiiiaut has stated thaf the cheque giveu by hmi was encashed by fhe accused. However froiu the eutire record fhere is no docuDient to fhis effect neifher any baak statesiient has been filed nor the details of the cheque has been given by the coniplaiiiaiit. 7. Furtlxer as per fhe case of fhe prosecution, the receipt Ex,P/3 & P/4 was given by fhe accused but a bare look of these docuiaeuts raakes it clear fhat different iak was used in difFerent places. Furfheniiore oue defence witoess naiaely UIlias Athley who is the handwritbig expert has examiaed th.e docunients aad fouud that the haadwxiting axid signature was froni dtfferent ink, 8. That fhe eutire evidence has been elaborately considered bv tiie Court below and the Court below has aiiived to a particulax' conclusion of givin.g benefit of doubt to fhe accused/respondentwhile acquitting him. 9. I find no reason to iaterfere in fhe judgiaeut of acqiiittal particularly fhe view taken by tlie court below. It is a setfled position of law ia relation to cases agaiast acquittal. In appeal agaiast acquittal if two views are possible on the basis oftiie evidence led by ttie prosecution aad tihe trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of fhe finduigs of acqiiittal by the appeUate Court taking fhe other possible view iato consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of fhe view that the judginent iinpugned acquittnig the respondent/accused of the offence under Sectiou 420 offhe IPC is just aad proper. In fhe resiilt, the appeal fails aod is disiaissed as such. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge