CF0000061325 ...^\ ^^.Y" \.v^^' o^ IN TJ2E-HIQH GGVRT ©FMBiyA %AIESH AS ^&BALPIB.. ;M'%.C* HO-<'"_S^O^Z___/19e QKmm^L AI%AL~J©<-i^ ^~^W ^T99^ AWmUA^i- RESPON3^KFDSf r^ 11G. w o.......... Au €^).. '^Sk^.«.^@^...^.^^A"' V^aa 9«WWf3»Wt,^aa<a^fl<»< t- s- TiE STATE OF M»P. TNOUGH DZS'miCT MAQISSKASES |RAIGAEHfll -VEBSUS'» l]Fft|ANDAKAM, S/0 Qim^ARI SORA, AGED ABGUt-28 OCCIIiPASiaK-FARHim, &RAM BEGAPABA @ESXKS5St 11E.A&S, ^/o:M&KS ii/0 NEAR ABGUT GAYASMI NIDIR- P13SOIBE,. DISTRIC£-EIAK$ARH» 2) KALIEUM, S/0 TIHA^lJRAM SOKA, AGED -48 IEAR3y TIOK-FARHIMG, &/0 GR^M -. AMAPALI-POLICE gTAT: DISSRICT-^AIGARH* AJ LIGAtIOI, FCR IEAVE TG AffiBM, tJEISSR SEGTIOI SfelwP»G<,ApISAL ."tJKTEER ^CTJ[G^""N375(.TT'<^#P»CI» oacut>A- ,M-.- :OH-FUB©RE, 578(3) ....••^^ SB : HON'SLE MR. JUSTECE PRITINKER DIWAKER —1 SB : HON'BLE MR. ^STICE PRmNKER DIW^KER CR.A. N0, 160S of 1997 AppucAjsrr yersys RESPONDENTS Stateof Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Thandaram and another Shri Ravindra Agrawai, P.L. for the State/appfican-t Shri H.S. Patei, counsei for the respondents. CRIMIN<4L APPEAL U/S 378(1) OF THE CR.P.C. JU&6MENT • (30.04.2010) The present appeal arises out of thejudgment and order dcjted 20,03.1997 passed by Judiciai Magistrate, FIrst Oass, .Raigar^ jn Criminal Case No. 95/1996 acquitt'ing the respondents/accused jfor the aileged offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indlan P^nal Code, 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.1996 one Lobna Moped owned by Shiv Kumar (PW-3), which was In possession of compiainant &ev Kumar (PW-5), WGS stolen. On 24.4.1996 F.I.K. ^Ex. P-1) was lodged by Dev Kumar (PW-5) cnd subsequently on 27.4.1^96 the said Loona was seized on the memorandum of respondent No. 1 - Thandaram from the possession of respondent No.2 -Koii Ram <|ind after investigation choiton was filed agalnst the respondents/accu^ed on 26.6.96 for the offences under Sections 379 and 41.1 of fhe Indian Penai Code. --1- r^ 3. In support of Its case, the prosecution has examined as mony as] six witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were aisoj recorded under Section 313 of the CrJP.C. in which they denied the charges leyelied agalnst them and pieaded 1+ieir innocence and false Jmplication in the case. Thatq^art, one witness name!y Tula Bci (&W-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. | 4. By the impugned judgment the Court beiow has acquitted thel accused/respondents of the offences as mentioned aboye. Hence the present appeal. 5. Counsel for the appSicont/State submits that despite overwhelmin9 eyidence available on record, the court below has erred m iaw In acquitt-jng the respondents. He submits that undisputedly, the moped in question was of the compbinant ond the saine was seized from the possession of respondent No. 2 but yet the respondents have been acquitted In an iltegal manner. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment counsel for the respondents submlts that their exist enmity between the seizure witnesses and the respondents/accused which has come in evidence and therefore the court below is justified in acquitting the respondents. 7. I have heard counsei for l+ie parties and perused the Judgment impugned as weil as the materjal avaiiQble on record. Prosecution has examined Jagdish (PW-1), Panditrom (PW-2), Shiv Kumar Chaudhari (PW-3), Jaimangai Prasad Pate! Q>W-4), De^ Kumar (PW-5) and Chintamani Malakar (PW-6) and after du^ appreciation of the evidence the trioi Court has come to thi conclusion that the accused/respondents are liabie to be acquitted|. »w^^^w».ww«^w^ /€"^;%.. I 'ttt& 1 II - ,'""'^^1 • ^ t %.; ^lff .t ^./ ~3- Further by a detailed reason the court below has a!so considered t|ie defence witness. 11, Thus, after hearin9 coun,%l for 1+ie parties and considering t|ie materiai avaiiable on record as wei! os the eteborate judgme^t impugned passed by the Court below and bein9 very much conscious the existing iegd position that In an appeal agoinst acquittai If t^o views ore possibie on the basis of the evidence ied by the prosecutl|?n and the triol Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the othjer possibJe view into consideration, is not perwisslble Jn law, this Court] is of the view that the Judgment impugned ocquitt'lng t|ie accused/respondents of the offence under Sections 379 and 411 the Indian Penal Code, is Just and proper wid does not worront €|ny interference by this Court. Accordlngly/ the appeal fails and is dismissed as such. 5-t/ ^f !of of SdV- PritinkerlDiwaker Judge ^.