VeSS- '''•yeS^S3S Xif'SSs^sjis '^•'^-s ^- eoURT OS, SUMCATURE AT JABALPUR, MP. ft^ c APPLICANT APPELLANT MCrC BS-*^ S'A^E' 2000^ CrA No OF 2000 .•f\ B- ftcq/ The State of Madhya Pradesh o5! °3 VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Haseeb Khan, Aged about 29 Years S/o Hafeez Khan Caste - Muslim R/o Jarhagarh, flmbikapur Dlstrlct Sui"gu]a HP 2. Guddu @ Asad !<han, Aged about 30 years S/o Md. Shareef Khan Caste - Musllm R/o Jarhagarh, Ambilcapur . Dlstnct Surguja MP . . 3. Moin Khan, Aged about 35 years S/o Maieed Khan, Caste - Muslim R/o Bmradandi PS Bmlai District Shahdol MP 4. Md. Firoz Khan, Aged about 37 years S/o Hd. Shareef Husalman R/o Jarhagarh, Smbikapur Dlstrlct Surguja MP . 'K APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 378(3) KND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1; OF ;..THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PP.OCEDURE 1973 s-,-.il^'l \vs •^if^ -;^sa!g?rt| Single Bench : Hon'bie Mr. Justice Pritinker Dwsker 'he State of Haseeb Khan and others. Smt. SmitaGhai, P.L. for the State/appiicant. Shri Suni! Tripathi, counsel for the respondsnts. APPiICATiON FOR ^ANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&I SECTION 378f3) OF THE CODE OF The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 28.1.2000 passed by Second AdditionGi Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja in Se.ssions Triat No. 191/1992 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences punishabi® under Sections 363 an.d 3&6/3.4 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.6.1992 at 10.! p.m. F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) WGS lodged by Shyam La! Sarg -father of one of the prosecutrix namely Sarita alleging that on that day birth day party was being ceiebrated in the house of another prosecutrix namely Sangeeta Soni (PW-5) arid during the soid party, both the prosecutrix went towards the courtyard of the house cuid from there they eloped with respondents No. 1 and 2 namely Haseeb Khan and Guddu @ Asad Khan. On the basis of F.I.R. iodged by Shyam Lal Garg, offences under Sections 363 and 366/34 1PC were registered aga.inst the accused persons- After investigation challanwas filed on 26.7.1992. .--- ~<s. *• -y r^r\ IBHg'iSpEiHSE® ;^^.^-^!i^<i^:^g 3. In order t the Drosecution i'1/e the guilt of the respondents/accused examined as vitnessas many as 12 support of i+s case. Statements of the respondents/accused were aiso Procedure in them and pl case. This under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal hich they denied the charges Jeveled ogainst their innocence and false impjication in the witnesses namety Alia Khan CDW-l') and (DW-2) have aiso been examined by the of its case. Ajimullhaq defence in sus 4. By the judgment impugned the court betow has acquitted the respondents/accused of the alieged offences punishabie under Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian Pena! Code. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the mflteriat avoilableon record including judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the State/o.pplicant submits that despite sufficient evidsnce available on record, the court below has erred in law in acquit+ing the respondsnts. She submits that prosecutrix Scmgeeta (PW-5) has made specific allegation against all the accused persons but the court beiow has wrongly disbelieved the same- 7. On the other hand, counsei for the respondents/accused submits that out of two prosecutrix, one Sarita has not been examined and iikewise her father, who is lodger of the F.1.R., Shanker Lat Gupta has also not been examined. He submits that even the investigating officer has not been examined. He further submits that prosecutrix Sarita was having affair with No. 2 - Guddu @ Asad Khan whereas Drosecutrix -aa-OjajSi a! Sangeeta (PW-5) was having offair with respondent No. 1 - Haseeb Khan. He submits that date of birth of the oroaecutrix is 9.7.1971 and on the date of incident she WGS aqed about 21 years of age whereas there is no evidence in respect of age of th.e other prosecutrix namely Sarita. After due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court below h.as arrived at the conciusion prosecution has not been able to proye it-s case reasonabie doubts, the respondents/accused were entitled for acquitta!. 9. After hearing counsel for the appiicant and corisidering the material avaitable on record as weil as the elaborate judgment impugned and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in on appeaj against acquittal if two views are possibte on the basis of the evidence |ed by the prosecution and the trial Cour!" taking one view favour-able to the crccused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court tcking the other possible yiew into consideration, is not permissible in iaw, this Court is of the view that the judgmsnt impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences punishabie under Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian Pena! Code, isjust and sroper and does not caij for any interference by this Court. Accordingiy, the leave GS sought for' by the applicant for registration of appeal against the Judgment of ocquitta! is hereby refused. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge