1^ -vs"L\ 1.1s1 "" "" " —--a—7n ' ^^-••3€a^-/-,,< ^--~~'^^'' l'~^ ^^i.'-'1'- t IN SKiS H-TGH COURT OF _JCT!ICA'rURE.CHHATTISGARK AT SILAS, ®f ^arsC^.Cr.Case Ns». Cr»ApDeal No« _/20L'en. /20C1, APPuIGANT APPELLANT The State VS, 's th^-^ f ^ij RESPOI'roENTS ^(rL.-l-:'i<a--' ,>•1... : ..-•:;"9i^T' ^ ^.-•;:^:;---/ ^ c'ri'i' •>;?! "^- .^••- ^- s 1« Mahendra Yadav aged^about 43years S/o Bechan Yadav/ R/i^N,ehru Nagar Kerba. • ,~"\. 2« Rakesh Singh, ag>id 23 year-s ^lX. S/a Jugendra Slngh, R/O..BuSfwas~'/ :\ Bazar^ K®rba« --. /':' .-' 3. papu agefi 21 years/ S/e> Ram!?Ss'iiian;.> R/© Budbwarj. Bazar, Korba ' /' Nehru Nagar; K©rba« / ! / 'W f.y APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVB TO APPBAL UHIiER 'SECSIzlM :-l.e OP TH2 CODE @F CSIMINAL PROCEDUBE' & MEMG OF APPEAL UNQ; S£CT£ON ,37§C3L OF' ,TyE CQDE, OF CRIMINAL FROCBDURE •PC -a-^JL 3.<="H'i ^ot^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker &iwal<er CRIMINAL APPEAL No.535 of 2001 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh Versus Mahendra Yadav A others. Mr. Praveen Das, &y. 6A for the State/appellant. Mr. M.K. Baeg, counsel for respndents No.l iS 3. Mr. H.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No. 2. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 (31 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. OR DER (20.01.2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finatly. Present appeal is directed ogainst the impugn^! Judgment of acquittal dated 31.5.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magtstrate. Korba in Crffnina! Case No. 482/1999 acquit^ng the respondents of the alleged offences punishoble under Sections 186,332 <S 506 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the case of the prosecution on 27.12.1998 FIR (Ex.P-2) was todged by Matik Ram (PW-2) atlegmg in it that he is working os Police Constable and on the fateful doy i.e. 27.12.1998 when he was performing his duty, he could hear the noise from Country Liquor Shop, !&ia Bhatta and when he had gone there, accused persons, who were standing there, have ossaulted him. It is alieged that accused/respondent No. 1 Mahendra Yadav was the manager of t.he Country Liquor Shop. / i 1 ^ i^^3&, 1 1 ^/ I 3. In support of its ccse, the pro^cutton hce examined as many as 9 witnesses. Stct-ements of the respondwts/accu^d were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimma! Procedure in which they denied the chapges leveled cgoinst them and pleaded innocence and false implieertion in the coee. 4. By the judgment impugned the court betow has acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section under Sections 186, 332 A 506 (B)of the Indian Pesvd Code. Hence this appecd. 5. Shri Das, counsel for the State/appeltant subntits that despite sufficient evidaTce availabte on record, tfte court below has erred in lcw? in acquitthig the respond®its. He further submits thort- most of the witne^es have support-ed the prosecution case but ignoring the stort-eraent" of Mionik Ram (PW-2), respondents have been acquitt'ed. 6. On the-other hond, counset for the respondents submit thdt stoEtement of AAanik Ram (PW-2) hss not been support'Kl by other witnesses cnd therefore, the ccquitl'al of the respondents in cccordance with law. They further submit thcrt respondents have been falsety implicort-ed simply beccuse the accused persons have failed to satisfy th®lust of a potice officer. 7. I have heard counsel for the porl'ies and perused the mcEterial ayailable on record. 8. Prosecution Witness No. 2 Monik Ram white supporting his complaint has stated before the &»urtthot on 27.12.1998 when he was on duty, he could hecr the noise from the Country Liquor Shop cnd when he reached there, one of the accused 7 -"/-- i» has shouted by ssying thcrt' he is fed-up with the police authorities as every doy they ore harossing them. It is alleged that at thct moment, the other accused persons have a^aulted him by hand and fist. He also soys thoct ois he become unconscious, he cannot say whether he wo®assoiuH^ed with the hetp of club or not. H®furt-her states that after th®incident he took an auto rickshow ond then lodged the report' before the police Stotion Kotwali vide ^x. P-2). He also says that twice his X-ray was taken in the hospita! but he was not scttisfied with those X- roys ond therefore, he had gone to one privort'e hospitat cnd there he was infwmed by the t>octor thort' he has suffered a fracture. It is relevsmt te mention herethort' no X-ray report of the private doctor has been exhsbited by the prosecution nor the said doctor has been excmined. He further states thot his uniform was stained with btood on account of injuries sustained by him. However, this stort-emeait of the complaincmt has not been aipport-ed by the medical report. On the contrary, this witness has cal'egorically steted that his uniform was not blood stained. Mcaiik Ram (PW-2) categoricatty admits that prior to the incid©it,he was not aware aboyt the name of the occused persons, hwsever, some of the ccused persons have been named in his stort'ement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He odmits thot no Test Identificotion Parcde was conducted by the police. Further there appears to be number of omissions ond contradict-ions in the stotement of this witness. 9. &r. P.S. Sisodiya (PW-6), who had examined the complainant ond has submitted his medical report (Ex.P-6). has stcited thot no grievous injuries whatsoever was sustained by D/- Malik Rom (PW-2) and eyw mjury which wes sustain^i by him could have been caused on accoimt of fall. Thus after Aie appreciation of the evidence avQilabte on r®:ord,the Court- below has arrived ot the conclusion thctt the prosecution hes not been abte to prove its case beyond reasondbte d<wbt, the respondents /accused wereentitlCTl for acquitt-ai. 10. After hearing counsel fw the parties and going through the evidence available on record ond twing very much conscious of the existing tegat position that in a case cgainst ac^itt'ai if two views are possibte on the basis of the evidence led fay the prosecution cmd the trial Court- taking one view fawurobte to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellote Coirt taking the other possible view into considerotion, is not pennissible in low, this Court- is of the view that the judgment im|wgned acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 A 506 (B) of the Indioin Penal Code, is just cmd proper and does not ca!l for any interference by this Court. 11. In view of the cdbove factual and leyil position, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgmCTt impugned. 12. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. .Sdf-^ \ ""'sr'"