(9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sfiram: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'ble Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar. JJ. Appellant Resoondents Cr. Appeai No. 1718/2000 State of Madhya Pradesh, through S.H.O. Bhairamgarh, Distt. Bastar. Versus 1. Sudarshan Kalar, S/o Mangalrami, aged 55 years. 2. Chamrinbai, W/o Sudarshan. aged 45 yeare. Both r/o Matwara, P.S. Bhairan^arh, Distt. Bastar. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 lm} CR.P.C. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 378 fi) CR.P.C. AGAINST ACQUITTAL Present : Shri Bhasker Payashi, P.L. for the State/appeHant. Shri Prafult N. Bharat, counsel for tiie respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passedon30 July,2009) The following oral judgment of the Court was delh/ered by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (i) of the Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the respondents of tfte charges under Section 294, 506, 302 read wtth Seetion 34 of the I.P.C. and the charge under Section 323 of the I.P.C. agalnst the non-applicant Sudarshan and charge under Section 324 of the I.P.C. against the non-applicant Chamrin Bai. 's' 2. Brief facts are that in the afternoon on 04.03.1997, the non- appiicants went to the house of Ditip Singh and said that they would neither vacate his land nor dismantle the house eonstructed thereon. A quarrel ensued. Non-applicant - Sudarshan assault©dDilip Singh on the head by a club. Non-applicant - Chamrin Bai caused injur/ to Dilip Singh by teeth bite. Jagdish P.W.5, brother of Dilip Singh intervened. Non- applicant - Sudarshan assaulted him on the head. On 05.03.1997 DJHp Singh lodged report in P.S. Bhairamgarh which was written in Rojnamchasanah No.149. Dilip Singh and Jagdish Singh were sent for medical examination. Dr. A.S. Sendram P.W.7 examined Ditip Singh and found a lacerated wound on the parietai bone right side 1" x %" x %", a contusion on the left side of arm at the level of Jeft elbow joint 3" x 2" and an abrasion on the left side of chest 1 %" x 1". Lacerated wound on the right skie of temporai bone 1cm. x 1cm. x 0.5cm, multiple abrasion on the left hand and abrasion on right side offace were found on Jagdish Singh. Diiip Singh succumbed to Jnjury. Merg intimation was Jodged by Jagdish Singh at P.S. Bhairamgarh on 07.03.1997. On post-mortem Dr. A.S. Sendram who opined that death was as a resutt of Coma due to head injury whidi had resulted in ante-mortem subdural haemorrhage. After investigatjon, the non-appiicante were prosecuted. Both the non- applicants abjured the guilt, pieaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. On appredation of evidence, the iearned Special Judge, Bastar acquitted the non-applicants of ail charges. 3. We have heard Shri Bhasker Payashi, learned Panei Lawyer and Shri Praftill N. Bharat, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the record. The law regarding the powers of the High Court in an -•3.- appeai against an order of aequittal is wetl settled. In Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 and Syed Peda Aowalia v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad,2008 Cri.LJ. 3488, it was held that the settled position of law regarding the powers of the High Court m an appeal against an order of acquittal is that the court has fuli powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittat is based and generaliy it will not interfere with the order of acquittai because by passing an order of acquittal the presumptton of innocence in iavour of the accused is reinforced. The goiden thread which runs through the web of administration ofjustice in criminal case is that iftwo \/\ews are possjbte on the evidence adduced in the case, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 4. There is no materiai on record to substantiate the allegations under Seciion 294 & 506 of the i.P.C. against the non-applicants. Regarding the altegation of Chamrin Baj inflicting injury on the chest of Dilip Singh by teeth bite, Dr. A. S. Sendram P.W.7 admitted that no injury due to teeth bite was found on Diiip Singh. So far as the presence of Jagdish Singh at the place of occurrence is concerned, it is rendered doubtful due to the assertion of Jamuna Bai P.W.1, wife of the deceased, that at the time of occurrence, he was at the place of employment. This is further rendered probable as Jamuna Bai P.W.1 dki not depose that non-applicant No.1 Sudarshan had assaulted Jagdish Singh. Dr. A.S.Sendram P.W.7 admitted that the injuries on Jagdish Singh were simple and could be seff- inflicted. Prosecution did not prove the Rojnamchasanha No. 149, dated 05.03.1997 written on the report of Diiip Singh on 05.03.1997 by calling its original. Jagdish Singh P.W.6 admitted in cross-examination that there -^ was a free fight between Dilip Singh and Sudarshan and both were engulfed with each other at the time of occurrence. A.S.I. Ramesh Nishad P.W.7 admitted that the non-applicants had also lodged a report at P.S. Bhairamgarh on 05.03.1997 which was written in Rojnamchasanah. He further admitted that the non-applicants were also sent for medical examination. Non-productjon of ttie Roinamchasanah and the injury report of the non-applicants teads to an inference that the genesis of the jncident has been suppressed bythe prosecution. 5. Consjdering the abovementioned facts, the foliowlng emerge: A. lack of corroboration by medical evidence renders the testimony of Jamuna Bai P.W.1 that Chamrin had infiicted injur/ by teeth bite, extremely doubtful; B. there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge under Section 294 and 506 ofthe i.P.C.; C. presence of Jagdish Singh at the piace of occurrence is rendered doubtful in view of the testimony of Jamuna P.W.1; D. the possjbility that the injury on Jagdish Singh was self- inflicted could not be rufed out; and E. the prosecution did not prove the Rojnamchasanah No. 149, dated 05.03.1997 recorded on the report of Diiip Singh and atso did not prove the Rojnamchasanah recorded on the report of the respondente and also the report of their medicat examination and thereby suppressed the genesis of the crime. 6. Having thus considered the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the vjew taken by the tearned Speciai Judge is a piausibte view of the evidence on record. We iherefore find no good reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal of the respondents. ® -s 7. in the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingjy dismjssed. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Anjani