m TBE, mGH uéibir/JUDICATURE: AT'BAPUR, . out Misc. Cr. Case No. 583C I Cr. Appeal N‘o._.323j_‘_ State bi Madhya ?‘raéésh through DiStrict Magistaate, Bilaspur. 11$, i/iw ‘ . \ \ RESEDONDW’I‘S: 1. Radheshyém S/o G0verdhan, aged 42 yrs. Non—applicants 2. Goverdhan S/o Purus‘nottam agedjz yrs. 3. Jagnohan s/o Mangloo raged 32 years. ‘ 4. Bhggwandas s/o Mangloo aged :9 years. ° 5. Mona allasAmarda§ s/o Goverdhan, ged 3§Vrs. 6. Ledhu s/o Goverdhan aged 47 years. 7. Sukhnandan s/o Goyerdhan aged 31 yrs. Bhagwanta s/o Mangloo aged 28 years. ‘ AI]; "r/o Panaatarai,’ P.Sv.{ Kunds, Distt Bile spur. ‘ .‘ )\ xxk‘, Wqvw/ ‘v 35¢; y W” v 0 *Wy. ‘ 1 it: M % Application U/s 578(_l ior grant am leave to appeal agzm a g_1nst judgment oi aCquittaldt 2.3921 gassed by the mgrt of Shri 3 B. ToppoL‘Judlcml Magistrate Ist Class Mungeli m 6r. Case No. 205/90. ‘ g déi'" ML “ _ z HI6H COURT OF €HHAETZ$GA§2H AT alLA$?UR $ing§e Beach : Hoh‘bEe Mr. §usf§ce Pri?in§<a?‘ {Eiwakef' Crimina! Appea! Na. 2321 0‘? 19g? PPELLANT 3mm :3 Madam 9‘ aéash Versus RESPONDENT5 Radheshyam md o‘rMr’s. “M } EV‘ Shri Shri Neemj Manaj Mah‘m, Mishm, P’ :Advocam for The $Ta’re/appeKméx 0;1 béhcdf 61¢ Shr‘i M33. Djhaw‘e, ecunsgi §ar ”me respondenTs/accused. € SEf‘TEON APW ECATEQN 31$ {’3} FO§E GF Cv‘RANT :Hg CO GF LEAVE (DF C§IwKINALhFk0€EDU§EI TG APPgAL UN£§ER Juawww (awazmu “he presen‘f appew Qr‘ises a»? of‘fhe impugrzd jwgman? and order dafed 2 J 1997 gasser‘ by Judlcm. Mag: faha F rs? C¥ass Mungeh m Cmmmai Case Ne 2Cqi1990 afqui?izrg Hie raspondenTs/rlccused ai’ ihs? o’f’Femes pumskabip arder” Sec‘i‘icms 354.1’149 and :14a 0f ‘rhe Emaaicw, Pgnai Cude‘ 2. grief mc’rs 01’ “me awe am mm an L E990 FIR. (EXP 1) wa< §~c§g¢d by Tefhia 8m {PW~1) digging fha’r an 12 3 1990 QT abau‘r 9 pm wwm she was reaming cdong wnh her daugh‘fer' Meiran Baa , respcrdamsfaccuaed bTapped ‘fhem draaged fhem To a mear‘oy muse and after wading fhe dam” ‘fmm 0.1’r51dg may eff ’rhw imvaca Based cm fh s I R GfJenca under Sec‘hans ‘47 M2 354 and 3’23 0: fhe Endian Pam! Cede \ m were regssierad agams? i‘n 'rasgam’er! s/accusea. AfTe: Ccmp!e‘rion-G@ iwesfiaa‘u‘iw ci7aifni? wag fiéed 0m 54‘1996. however wh 1e :rammg ’rhr merges eerred fréel Judge hes framed i'he charges agams; fhe respcnéee‘fs/eccueed weer Secfiens 354/149 and 342 of The Indian Pena! Coée. )tx @ in ordgr Ta prove ?hg guéi‘? m“ The ragpgnéenmfacwsed fhe prosecufian has exammaci a$ mamy as § wimessag in guppor‘.‘ of H3 ewe. S’rmememfs m.” i'ha raspcn&en‘?S/&ccusad ‘ 'er'e a‘so r’ecar‘dpci undgr Secfzon 343 (3f The mad? e Cmmmn: maedure m vmcn ‘thay dPmed fhe mama» 3evelgd agaw Them and pleaded Thai“ imosame cam fake imp§iccmon in 'rha GSe l 4 ‘ it By fhe Judgmen‘r Impugned The caum bebw ha; acqu:+?ed ’rne respondpnfs/accused of fhe azfences punishabie Lmde 5ec‘hcm 354/149 and 342 of fhe Indian Pena! Ode r‘ience {i Is appeal! .. 5. Ccunsel far The Sm‘u‘e/appeHamT submifs Tm? m1 fhe bask m“ evidence adduced by The pmsecu’ticn, ‘f’ne caur‘f bdcw ough‘? f0 have canvicfeci fhe accused/respandent He submifs Thaf 1‘her‘e is enough mm‘eria! avaiiabie an record warranfing convici‘ion of fhe respandenfs/aecused. ’t é. On “the ofher hand suppcriing fhe §mpugeed juégmen’? hL has been argued by The counse§ for fhe respendems/accusee fhm‘ ‘fhe wifnesses have ram” s‘hzfrec} a3 To fer wha’r mmmicm “they were cenfined in The e’bom and The presenf appears "to be Ci case of faise imp1ica‘rien because 0f Vmage pciifies. He fur’rher’ submh‘s Tha‘r were are maieraicd can?mdie%icns and omissions in The sTaTemenT crf The prosecuTian wiTnesses. 7. E have heard emse! far The parTies cmd perused The maTer'iai availabie on record including judgmenT impugned. 8. JeThia Bai (PW—1) iii her cburT sTaTemenT Theuge has made aiiegaTion abouT her canfinemen’r buT she has nm‘ sTaTed anyThing i‘a reiaTion TO The affence under SecTian 354 0f The @ Endicm Penal Ccde. Th§s apart There are ma’rerml canTmciicT§m amd omissions m her ccum‘ smfemen‘f from Thm‘ of her case ‘E diary sw‘fementr'ecgrded under Secficm 161 Cr.P.C.. Simiiar is ’rhe posi’rion wiTh Melm Bai (PWeZ) cmd she has’a{$o admif‘fed fhm‘ Where exisfs an enmi‘hj bemean her and The accused/appellm‘e" Affer‘ due apprecia‘rim a”? fhe evidemz avaiiable on record, fhe’Caum‘ beiow has arrived af ’rha x t “cynciusion Tha‘r The prosecufion has nm‘ been ab!e f0 prove hrs i case beyond (1!! reasonabie doabfs, The respondenTs/accused were en’ri‘rled for acqui’r’ral. 9. Affer hearing counse! for fhe appeiicm‘r and cons§derirg The mirrerial avaiiabie on record as we” as T'he eiaborafe - Judgmenf {impugned and being very much conscmus of The exasfmg iegal posmon ‘fhm' m an appeal agams‘ acqua’r’rai if Two Views are poss:ble on fhe basis of ewdence ied by The prosecuTion and The Triai CourT Taken one View favoured The \ accused, Tak§ng The oTher piausibie View inTo consTderaTion, is hoT permissibie in iaw and Therefore This Court is of The considered opinion ThaT The judgmenT impugned acquiTTing The respondenTs/accused of The offence under SecTions 354/149 and 342; of The lndian Penal Code, is jusT and proper and dues naT warranT any inTerference by This CourT. Accordingiy, The appeai being wiThouT subsTance is liabie To be dismissed. IT is accordingly dismissed Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge i i i i i i sg w—«$ A AT: