*'•*''•' ^s^.f-~"v w.: 1, ll ^ .••-*^.. ..'•.-'.'c' *—:•'. WtiaT\FiC ^te^^.^ B/C.GjOSA^KPSCifl'; l&nOFTH£COUFH; w; m^—' aVa-5370/XXI- : 3CHEDULE c3ACT1S70. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0. SZ€>i^ /2008 ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. /2008 PPELLANT The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Majoram, S/o. - Late Raruha Sahu, Aged about -61 years. 2. Shivram, S/o.- Majoram Sahu, Aged about - 39 years. 3. Smt. Munnibai, W/o.- Shivram Sahu, Aged about - 36 years. All areR/o.-Village - Kuwangaon, Thana - Jarhagaon, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE^TO APPEAL U/S 378 (3LAND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 flfOF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973. '^ESPONDENTS : 1 _ ^ A^. ^w3 J?-' -/ >'^x<k ^-^' .A vss' .*' 'c^" r HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker) Cr. M.P.No. 206 of 2008 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Majoram and others. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for the applicant/State.. APPUCATIONUNDERSEGTION 378 (3)0F THEGODEOF GRIMINALPROCEDURE ORDER (08.02.2010) Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6.10.2007 passed.by Additional Sessions Judge, Muhgeli, District Bilaspur in SessionsTrial No. 04/2007 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under sections 294, 506-B and 323/34 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 7.6.2006at about 9.40 a.m. FIR Ex. P-3 was lodged by Indruram Sahu(PW-2)alleging that on that day at about 6.30 a.m. he was abused, threatened and beaten by the respondents/accused. It is also alleged that respondent/accused Munnibai had assaulted him with the help of axe. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its ease. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded underSection 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure in which they have denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in thecase. 4. After hearing the parties leamed Court betow has acquitted the respondents/accused of 'the charges levelled agaihist them. Hencethis petition. —••^ • \, 5. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that the acquittal of the respondents/accused of the charges mentioned above is not in accordance with law for the reason that on the basis of material available on record the respondents/accused ought to have been convicted by the Court below. 6. Fromthe statement ofthe complainant namely Indruram Sahu (PW-2) it is clear that he has not stated as to what abuses were hurled by the respondents/accused and all the allegations made by him are general in nature. This witness has stated that he was assaulted by one Jairam with the help of pickaxe but no injury as such was found on his body. Ramnarayan (PW-3) has stated ih his evidence that hewas informed about the incident by his mother. Krishna Kumar (PW-4) has stated that the accused persons had assaulted hisfatheron account ofsome land dispute but he has not made any specific allegation against the accused persons. Sitaram (PW-5) and Mayaram Sahu (PW-6) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Medical report makes it clear that only one injury was found on the thigh of the complainant which according to the doctorcould have been caused by fall also. Thus the triai Court appears to have recorded its findings acquitting the respondents/accused based on the material available on record. 7. After going through the material available on record and being very much conscious ofthe existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trialCourt taking oneview favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence under Section 294, 506-B and 323/34 IPC, isjustand properand does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave to appeal sought for| by the applicant/State is hereby refused. I Sd/- ' , ; Pritinker Dhyaker M