CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Cr. M. P. No. 500 of 2007. Applicant Appellant State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS Omshanker @ Guudu Kanwar, S/o Laxman Kanwar, Aged about 24 years, Occupation — Agriculturist, Rio Village Patna, P.S‘ Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G)‘ Nun-applicant Respondent ORDER (12m April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing l.A.No.01/2007, the documents med along with this application are taken on record. 2) Learned Additional Advocate General is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondenti accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar. 3) Police Shankargarh, District Surguja after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of one HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Application for grant of leave to appeal U/S 378(3) and memorandum of appeal u/s 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Present: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/petitioner. Somari Bai, widow of deceased Tilsai, charge‘sheeted respondent/ accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar, for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the lndlan Penal Code, on the accusation of his having committed murder of deceased Tilsai in the intervening night of 28‘“ and 29‘“ of May,2006. 4) The respondent/ accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code. 5) At the trial, the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was sought to be proved against respondent/ accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar on the evidence of PW-1 Somari Bai, PW-2 Pradeep, PW—3 Kamli Bai, PW-4 Mansai, PW-5 Rajkumar, PW-6 Dr‘ Awadesh Kumar Singh, PW-7 Mangal Sai, PW-8 Tingal, PW-Q Ram Baran and PW—10 T.R. Sahu. 6) The trial Court on a close scrutiny 'of the entire evidence . led by the prosecution at the trial found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses fell short of establishing the charge punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent laccused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted respondent/ accused Omshanker @ Guudu Kanwar Vide impugned judgment dated 22.06.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No.273/2006. 7) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenabie @ grounds. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the weapon of offence (Spade) was seized at the instance of the respondent/ accused and the same was found to be stained with human blood and the inimicai background between the accused and the deceased were more than sufficient to estabiish the charge of murder against the respondent/ accused. 8) Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account in the case to connect respondent! accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar with the alleged commission of murder of deceased Tilsai. ln the First information Report lodged by Somari Bai, widow of deceased Tilsai, suspicion was directed against Tingu and Somaru. lt was at a later stage of the investigation that respondent’s name figured as assailant of deceased Tilsai. The lone alleged incriminating circumstance against the respondent/ accused sought to be relied upon by the prosecution at the trial was that of alleged seizure of a Spade as weapon of offence and that the same was found to be stained with human blood. The seizure of ‘ Spade at the instance of the accused is said to be after about four days of the incident on 02.06.2006. Though, the Autopsy Surgeon has stated that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by means of this Spade, the dimension and description of the injuries as given in the postmortem report creates doubt about the use of Spade as weapon of offence by the asSailant. ln this state of evidence, mere inimicai background between the accused and the deceased in the context of the fact l that though suspicion was directed against Tingu and Somaru in the First Information Report, respondent Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar was not referred to in the First information Report at all, cannot by itself Iead to inference with any amount of certainty that it was respondent/ accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar who caused those injuries on deceased Tilsai in the intervening night of 28*" and 29‘” of May,2006, which resulted in his death. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the tindings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent I accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 10) Mere possibility of another view’ on the prosecution . evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 11) The petition tiled by the petitioner l State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent! accused Omshanker @ Guddu Kanwar, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. y \¥\w - 7 Sdl- l Sdl- ,i‘ . sunil Kumar Sinha i Chief Justice Judge subbu \l \