;-1 .-rw miri 'CFb'000061202 'IK THE HIGH COURT OP MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR ——-—•—~ <4ff ;.CRIeCASS.NO« ^^ |96) , . • CRIMINAL APP3AL U C"7' . /91 ^;^j ^ Vi€ ?»...• APPELL^bFTs Stateof Madhya Pradesh • . • . Ve'rsus • . . NON APPLICAN'TS , Kwrfar Singh S/o 'Piladavu Goad, aged 25 years Village Sandideh^P.SaDongargaAoDisft. Rajnandgaon^ ^' U1 ^PELICATION _UNDER SECTION_378iiii) F.OR LEAVE_^0_APPEM.,_^AniST J AC^UITTAL ANDM.SO AN AP'PEM..U/S 178li)_OF_Cr.PACs^A±N^. ACQUITTAL . • .' • • • .' . , ' ^_^s— ^::^^ T^ HI^H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justic@ Pritinker Diwater Crimlrsai A&p©alNo.l667_of_1997 APPELIANT BESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh yarsvs Kuwar Singh son of PiJGdovu 5ond Shri Praveen DGS, Dy. ^.A. for the State/appeHant. Shr-i R.K. Bhogat, counsel for the respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER S6CTION 378 (1) Oc THE 0s JU D^ME NT (28.07.201G) Present appsal arises out of the impugned judgme.nt ond order date-d 29.2.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Flrst Ciass, Dongaraarh In Crlminal CGS€No. 431/1991 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Sectlon 325 of the Indian Pena! Code. 2. Case of the prosecution In brief is that on the basis entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-4C) dated 20.9.1991, F.3^ of .R. (Ex.P-3) was regjstered on 9.10.1991 ogalnst the respondent that on 20.9.1991 when the victim namely Shanker (PW-1) ^as working in his field, there was some dispute regardlng fiow irrigation woter between the. respondent/accused and l^h.e compidnant. It Is aiieged that respondent assauited 1]he compiainant with the help of club as a rssu!t of which he sustained number of injuries. 3. So GS to hojd the accused/respondent guiity, prosecut|i has exomined o.s many QS 7 witnesses In support of its ccjse. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded un<?er Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in whlch of lon he ^ "^ ..<€S""o.. /y .<^"^^. ^ ^S<;.1.& .' •'. % ^€/' '^-.^^^' denied the char-ge ievelSed against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in ths cose. 5. By the smpugned judgment the court below hcs acqultted the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 325 of the Indicui Penai Code. 6. CounseS for the State/appeilont submlts thfft on the basls of evldence as adduced by th.e prosecution, the court beiow ought to have convicted the accused/resporsdent. He submlts that there is enough materia! avaiiabie on record including medicd report of the complainant warranting conviction of the respondent/occused. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by counsei for the respondent that the vsew taken by the court below is strictly in accordonce with !aw anci there is no infirmity in the same. 8, Heard counsel for the parl-ies and perused the materi^l available on record including thejudgment impugned.. 9. Though comploinont Shanker (PW-1) in his cour statement has stated that he was assauited by tl^e respondent/accused and his statement has aiso been support^d up to some extent by Dr. N. Sachdeva (PW-2) who h^d medicaliy examined him by soying that he sustained injuries 6n his hond, he has also opined that the injuries sustained by ^e victim could have been caused due to fQll. Further there is discrepancy in the statement of Shanker (PW-1) and BaiGr^m (PW-3) in respect of time of the Incident and both pf them have given different timings of the accident. In the F.I.R. there is no mention that Baiaram (PW-3) was aSlso .r<K^.", ^'.^, ,,^^^ I. :£^^-^^{^ j,J' '%'.^;yy :s^y present there whereas he hos been examined in the Court as eye witness and thus his statement becomes doubtful.It \s ajso apparent from the stotements of Shanker (PW-1) any BQJaram (PW-3) that they have exaggerated their versior^s saying that number of injuries were sustained by them whereas the same has not been supported by thsir medica! report. ^ll these aspects have been duiy considered by the court be!o^ while possing the impugned judgment of ocquittal. 10. I find no reoson to interfere in the Judgment of acquitta! part'iculariy the view taken by the court beiow is one of the possible view. It is a settled legal position that in a co.se against acquittd if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence ied by the prosecution and the trial Court tdking or|s view favour'abje to the occused, reversion of the findings 6f acquittal by the oppeiiate Court taking the other possibie view into consideration, is not perrnissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penai Code, is just and proper and does not cdi for ony interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present case and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge D/-