HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Respondent Cr.M.P.No.81of2010 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, District tenker (CG) VERSUS Shravan Markam, S/o. Makhanram Markam, aged about 39 years, R/o. Village Badevara, Aroud, presently R/o. Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) ApDlication for arant of leave to appeal U/S 378 (31 and memo of appeal u/s 378 (11 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (05'"July,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing IA No.1/2010, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of teave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Shravan Markam. 3) Police Narharpur, District Kanker, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of one Suresh Kumar charge-sheeted respondent/ accused Shravan Markam, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, on the accusation of his having committed murder of deceased Dwarika Ram in the inten/snip.g night of 12th and 13th ofJanuary, 2QQ9. 4) The respondent/ accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 302 and 201 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 5) At the trial, the above charges against the respondent/ accused were sought to be proved on the evidence of R/V1 Sumrit Bai, PW2 Vishnu Ram, PW3 Devendra, PW4 Savitri Bai, PW5 Dumeshwari, PW6 Manoj Kumar, PW7 Aatmaram, PW8 Jageshwar, PW9 Sheik Shabeer, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11 Surendra Kumar Singh, PW12 Anju Chelak and PW13 Alexander Kiro. 6) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evldence of the above named prosecution witnesses Tound that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case; the evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses suffered from serious infirmities; the prosecution evldence fell short of establishing the charges punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent/ accused Shravan Markam. On the above findings, the trial Court acquitted respondent/ accused Shravan Markam vide impugned judgment dated 19.11.2009 ^.-•h."'^ ^C^ i '!aafi?!&\ f1 •^ ^-^ ' ''•%-,-. j? f ^ < 7) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred In discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. 8) Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account in the case to connect respondent/ accused Shravan Markam with the alleged commission of murder of deceased Dwarika Ram. The entire prosecution case against respondent/ accused Shravan Markam was founded on circumstantial evidence alone. The main incriminating circumstance alleged against respondent/ accused Shravan Markam was that deceased Dwarika Ram was last seen alive in the company of respondent/ accused Shravan Markam. The above circumstance was sought to be proved by the prosecution at the trial on the evidence of PW3 Devendra and PW7 Aatmaram. Unfortunately for the prosecution both these witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The other incriminating circumstance alleged against respondent/ accused Shravan Markam was that there were blood stains on his Shawl which was seized by the Pollce. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, no report from the Forensic Laboratory/ Serologist was produced before the trial Court to establish that there were blood stains on the Shawl and those blood stains were of human origin. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittat of the respondent/ accused; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we h '~~'".^\ i: \^-</ ./ are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondent/ accused, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 10) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence wilt not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 11) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/ accused Shravan Markam. 12) The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under SectiCTT378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails gnd ishereby dismissed^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd- Sunil Kuirar Sinfa Judse subbu