W3?- 3^ ^TTOTag BWwe-^TTE^^f^T^TJ &-}..; Tw^ra TTqtuR 4.- 2S aio 311^% sSSt ^rgaraq?? ir^m?, gYtw gwret, STRT ^rw, m-^r^ ^TRB ^Wr ?^IT, TURTT g?T7gr ^Til 3H^%- !• ?y75-ST? 3ITO EfltTTR gy a-0 ^, 2@, *w sro ^^ y^r^ ss 35 w 3- T^Si'TO TyTyHT? 3?} 45 ^ 4° ^q-^TT smj gnmi ligcj^- 37152 q? 5.. gTTTl- 3)TO BTfc(S<Tq 3-Ji 35 W 6.* S^ 3TO ^ftm sy 36 gg 7' •te^? aro g-ftn-q 3-^ 35 q^ B.- NTO irmr? srro ^- ,TOT^ 3-? 37 ^ 9' H^liR 3jTD ^gm} 3y 34 g& j0- €fW3TD Tq??5H 3^ 30 W B'fr ^T^ft-^Tq gCT-Tcfr aruT ^-T3T, '•^>l>. ? TuiciT $!iTS'T Is'-.ri.i '< tiii^ ^K'' ^^s i>>^z^ri ^v^:^i'' ^t^y''.A'UL^*- ^ tiTPi7i-x ^h-^- ^o SJlg-s ^h^r, ^y'^V\ ^W^S^ ts'fr^ T^-SFT :ig% ETTTT" 397^1/^1^ t^ - "•""'—*"—— nB^aan-B——.——^... '^!£a!:"^~ GW^' ^ - ''' ;r^ls' ^ HI6HCOURT OF CHHATnSSARH AJ BILASPUR Single Bench ; Hon'bfe Mr. Justice Prjtinker Diwaker CRIMINAL REVISION No. 25 of 2004 Babulal Versus NON-APPLICANTS Raqhuvar Prasad <S other; Shri Atu! Pandey, counsel for the appiicant. Shri Ajit Singh, P.L. for the State./respondsnt Nq. 1: CRIMINAL REVISION UN&ER SECTIOiSi 397 READ WITH SEC730N 401 OF THE CG&6 Or CRIMINAL PROCEDUftE (10.12.2009) Hear'd on admission. Present reyision is directed agdnst the .impugrsed order dated 31.8.2001 passed by Judicia! AAagistreri-e, Firsf Cjass,; Korba in Criminai Case No. 938/2000 acquitting the respondents/accused of the clieged offences pijnishab!e|under Sections 147^52/149,323/149 A 294/149 of the Indian Penal Code. . : ^ . ,ii : . Case of the prosecution in brief is that on §,7,1993) F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Babulat Agrawal (PW-l),present appiicdnt, alleging in it that on 5.7.1993 at about 4.15 pm when h®was isittint in his grocery shopalong with hisyoungerson Anand Kurtiar, his elder son Ratan Kurnar was also sitting in theadioining cio^ti shop, accused persons carryingclubs came there, stwted sbu^ing and 1 ;i beating them and asked them as to why the shop is beiip^ kept open whereasthevillagershave giyen the cali of "Band . 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as mfiny as 8 witnesses including that of the complainant Babuld ^gr'awoil- fe ^ 3 defence witnesses were also examined by fhe accused persons. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded innocence and fdseimplication in the case. 4. Counse! for the applicant submits that the court below has committed a serious error in awar'ding acquittal to | the rsspondents/accused despite there being sufficient material available on record calling for their conviction. 5. Court below has aequitted the accused persons onj| the foltowing grounds;- | (1) As per the statements of Baburdm Agrawal (PW-1), Ratann Kumar (PW-3), Anand Kumcr (PW-4) <S Ramovtar (PW-5), it is the respondent/accused No. 10 AAurari, who had entered the shop and had assfflj|ted them and there is no s!legation against the Qthers respondents/accused persons. | (2) For the formation of uniawfu! assembiy there haS to be at least five members and in the present case pnly two persons had entered the shop of the complainant and the rest were simply standing in the far off ptace. (3) Witnesses have stated that oround 200-250 persons i I; had gathered jn the village and the proeession !j«as going on, only on the basis of inclusion of |jthe respondents in tftesaid procession, it cannot be Aaid that they were the member of unlawful assembtYltind had gathered there with any common intention. l!i ^' <>... ^ (4) Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-2), who had exomined the complainant Babulal Agrawal (PW-1) and his two sons on 5.7.1993, has categoricaily stated that Anand Kumar had hot suffered any injury and the injury which was atieged to have been sustained by Ratan Kumar (PW-3) cannot be caused by throwing the stones. Injures sustained by fhe compldinant Bo.bula! Agrawat couid also haye been caused after being against the door. ! (5) Kishonlal (PW-6) and Vijay Kumar (PW-7) Koye categoncaiiy stated that they had not seen the incident. ! 6. I have heord counse! for the pcrties cmd perused the material available on record. 7. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned and the reasons as assigned above by the court below while acquitting the oiccused persons seems to be justified. Furthermore, the incident had taken place in the year 1993 and after 16 years i^ is of no use toprosecute theaccused psrsons again. j 8. After hearingcounsel for the parties and going through the evidence avaiiable on record and being very much conscioys of the existing legal position that in a case agqinst acquittal ifiifwo :l;j' views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by]i^he Hi prosecutionand the trial Court taking one view favourable toijt-he accused, reversion of the findings of acquitt-al by the app^!|ate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, isiHof permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the jucigna^nt impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of ths |all^g^d| -JF' N .fc^ai(WI *IBsMI»a»SW>-><^.^&^« f!»^^ ^^ offences punishable under Sections 147,452/149,323/149 & 294/149 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not cai! for any interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above factual and lego.l position, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 10. Thereyision petition fails and i's,,(K£or'd!nglY_dismissed. d/- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge