"-'••:( iSVris'iLi ••f^rvit-SS9=SS-.f^-£'^S-SS^fr'ii=r9'sSv'iE,ii F' rf'&FS.fA.^^. a ^;ff%.s-i s&/l' ^A:L>^.sar-aj.fflL= •^'eHKATTISGAftH.;"^- .C.R.C.NQ.12: CRIMINAL APPEAL NS. ^-3" iis irtna ^ OP20S3 AaBiscaRt cat» Ststa of Chhattss^arh \/t-Dc^ltc-;l Sf i- Fvi-? ir- ^ Ssr^tsss* S/s Pvariram T-t^^i&a SiB^^^aiSai, '•^.^3 : ySSas S .§SS.S3%t --; :- S/s HiraSaS A^.^fS ^£^'0il&3§V^^i^ 3 CSsstrareKns ^ Ve/oBasssnt . . J^ss^ 'Sa^ous. 3S' Tssrs :C§11S31^SH:l€3 : . W/aeirdharSsftu :Ageds&out 43 years tAll''resi«Ssnts;of.vijl.: JeraSarai • Oiit 'PGst Bhskhara, P.S. Kurud S:%-—>A» ••• •ff^i»«hB»»A'^—a.V .' • ••' - .'.•'. • •' a.?E^'&Sia.'sA?a's@ri-B.B.araj . ,. - ::. -; ; ::APBUCAT!ON:.eOit'SgMlrrOF't,EAVE.TO APPEAt UNDEKISECn®1137S@3-»NOKM:EWO:1OF.APPEftL1': . tINnSB:''esyTTnN: 'aTnt^H :(a:p;:TUF'mftR os /•BTMTWAI .%»*-»ii»'a»a'*..'.,ii^.h.-*<.'i.<;iuri7S:.^»»:.^».^.*..'<i»'S ;:.;'i '•iS.fm:\^'^f^:-i^::.'^s .. »rfi»AiciAi'i^"«*». "l'PROGEDURE:1973,.:":.1. • ' ' . HIGH CQUKT OP CHHATnSGARH AT mLASPSBE lllsil iU^tiKi, versus State ofChEattisgarh Girdhar & Others Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. Q.A. fortlse State/appeUaiit. . ShriN.S.Dhurander, counsel for fiie respoiidents. APPLICATIOS.FOR, GRANT OF_LEA'VTBT_0._APPEAL_UZS 378(3} & MEMO O^OF THE. CSBAm&L- PSOCBDURB CODB JXJOGMENT . . ' ' T'he present appeal arises out of tbe judgiueut and order dateci :! 26.9.02 passed by th.e ChiefJudicial MagisTrate, Dhaiatari m Cr.Case; No. 264/98 acquitting fhe accused/respoiidents of tlie ofFences under Sections 341,294,506-11 & 323/34 ofthe IPC. ; 2. Case of&e prosecutKin inbriefis that 0&4.1.98, FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Kumari Bai (P.W.-I).sllegin.g.fhat on that day at about • 7.30 a.m.. tliere was some a.uaire! 'between. her son Ajay aud oae Sukh Bai who had also atteai£fed to a'ssaBit her son Ajay howeveri, she intervened and the qUaEretwa&'stopped. It is filrfher alleged. thar. after soinetuiie. when s.h.e.was'-retynung'after attendmg the call of nature, accused/respond.ents Basant &'Girdb.ar stood on ttie way aad started assaultiag her (Kuiuari Bai) hy uieaus of clubs aad she was also abused aad threatened fcv thein and wlten her husbaad. (Miadu Ram) interveaed,. wife ofGirdhar & Basant (CKandrtfca JS,, ^ Chitrarekba) also started assaultuig liim wifb. clubs. Based on^ttM^ • report, ofieiice uiider, Sections 294,341,506-H & 323/34a3f tKe^.I}yq;|fi: 'Sfas registered agai&st fhe 'aecused^icspondents. After iuyestigatj -cliallan was filed oni20.1.98; ; ; . : 11: ,• :.; ^ :'^:'^: ' ;>'.! B JLuLri^^UJl, 3. In order to prove fhe guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as niany as 10 witnesses. One defence witness has also been examiaed. Stateiaent of the accused/respondents were also recorded uilder Section 313 Cr.P.C. in wbich fh.ey deiiied the chai^e leveled against thexa aud pleaded tnnocence aa.d false im.plication ia. the case. - 4. Contention. of Stui Mishra, counsel for fhe State/appellan.t is tliat despite clear evidence of Sections 323, 506-11 & 294 IPC, the Court below has erred iri law in. acquittmg the accused /respo.ndents. He subinits fhatminor contradictions and onussions ia fhe stateinent of fhe witaesses ought to have been ign.ored by the Court below. 5. On fh.e ofher hand, suppertaig the impugned judgm.est, it has been argued by SIui Dhuras.der, counsel for the respondents that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not veiy clinching aad on fhe basis of weak evidence available on record. the lespondents have rightly bfeen acquitted. He furthersubiiuts fhat the respondents aiid the com.plainau.t party ai-e close relatives aad fhere was peafimi dispute between thein wifh regard to partition of land. • j 6. Kumari Bai (P.W.-l) Sa Miudhu Ram Sahu $P.W.-2) fhough have supported fb.e prQsecution case but there appears to be xuaterial contradictions aiid omissions in ftteir stafeineut. Froni the stateinent. of fhese two witnesses, it is also apparent that ttiere was sonie. old land dispute betaveen fhem. aad the Mtigations. wei-e pending in tbe Court. SiTnflar is the positk>n with. ffae stateineirt of Ajsy (P.W. -c^ \fbe cbild witness aad froin the stateraent of this witness itappears lfb.at fhe dispute arose between ttie parties on acco^uit of trivial issue. Medical report of Kumari Bai (P.W.-l) & Mindhu Ram (P.W.-2) reaects tliat though they suffered uijuries but considering ttie iaconsis1jes.cy ia fhe stateineirt of tliese witaesses, it will not be safe forfbis^Ctourt to reverse fhe judgiaent of acqiuttal passed by tlie Court below. |^?33ile appreciatiii.gtheevidence,theCourtbelow has arrived to a partiii-nlar conclusion ofacquittuig fb.e accused/respondents. •^•i :t ! Ni:fSK 121 "'?-'.. ^l!'>-niffi""* 7. I fiiid no reason to interfere ia fb.e judgineQt of acquittal particularly fb.e view taken by fhe court below is one of the possible view. Furthermore, beiag very inuch conscious of fhe existing legal position that in aa appeal agamst a.cquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence !ed by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favo'ured the accused, tafcmg tfae other plausible view uito consideration, is not permissible ia law and titerefore ttlis Court is of the considered opinion ttiat fhe judgment irapugned acquitting fhe respondents/accused ofthe ofFence under Sections 341,294,506- II & 323/34 of the IPC, is.just aiid proper and does not warrant any iiiterference by flxis Court. Acconlingly, the appeal being without substaace is liable to be disniissed. It is accorduiRly disnussed. Sd/- pritinkerOiwaker Judge