\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ V cFOOOO “W \\\ x TxwBAmUR, (Mum) OF 2000 Q ($529 Bca/ The State' of Maahya Praéesh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. APPELANT AL ANT -VS .- ohanlal s/é Shr'i Tiri‘aheram, aged about 25 yearg», r/o ’Gairmoora,1?olice station Dhabhara;District :Janggeer,Champa , (ii! .13.) APPLICATION UNDER ESECTION 7(ii) FOR GRANT OF IEAVE TO }??EAL UNDER SECTEON 378(1) OF THE CQDE OF CREMINAL PROCEBUREJ 973 l ES PO N’DEET R NK ACCUfSED ’ ‘ L PP I C M 38i A L. N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR J / Acguittal Agpeal No.08l2009 State of Madhya Pradesh Aggellant versus Mohanial S/o. Shri Tirithram, aged about 25 years, R/o. Garimoora, PoIiCe Station Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, (M.P.) ' A Iication fdr leave to A eal u/s. 378 3 Cr.P.C. and Criminal ' , Aggeal u/s. 37891) Cr.P.C. against acguittal Present: Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. A. G with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Resgondent Shri D.L. Prajapati, counsel for the respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (25th March, 2010) This appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal dated 29.01.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.93/97 by which it had acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 451 354 and 323 of indian Penal Code. , macaw. “Was-m...“ 2. The learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent‘d.Ue to lack of evidence. lt disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and 7 , acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.02.1997 at about 9.00 ciock in the night, the prosecutrix had slept in her house, Mohanlai (respondent/accused) entered into her house and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. When she cried, the accused/respondent pressed her neck. On hearing her cry, her brother-in-law, Chensingh came there and on seeing him, the respondent/accused ran away from the spot. Witness Rajkumar saw the respondent/accused , while he was running away from the place of incident. A written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged in the Police Station Dabhara and the case was registered. Necessary seizures were made. 4. After recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shakti, under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent. The charge was explained to the respondent who abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence and false implication. 5. After taking evidence, hearing both the parties and after appreciation of the evidence, the learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of charge under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. Against this judgment, the State has preferred this appeai. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued that prosecutrix (PW/1) has stated ail about the incident and also stated that the respondent entered into her house at night and tried to V outrage her modesty while she was sleeping. Therefore, acquitting the respondent/accused by the lower Court is perverse and against the law. The learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. 8. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the lower Court. 9. After perusal of the records and evidence, it is clear that the prosecutrix (PW/1) has stated that on the date of incident, she had slept in her house at night and while other relatives had gone to attend the Saraswati Pooja. At that time, the respondent entered into her house and tried to outrage her modesty. When she cried, .the accused/respondent pressed her neck. On hearing her cry, her brother-in-law, Chensingh came there and on seeing him, the respondent/accused ran away from the spot. According to her statement, witness Rajkumar saw the respondent/accused, while he l wm-«ww-«lm was running away from the place of incident. Then the report (EXP/1) was Iodged at Police Station Dabhara. 10. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that she was not aware of what was written in the Ex.P/1. She also stated that. due to darkness she was not able to identify the person who entered into her house. In this way, neither she could identify the person who entered in her house in the night nor did she know about what had been written in EXP/1. Chensingh (PW/2) has stated that Rajkumar (PW/3) saw the accused/respondent while he was running away from the spot. He has further stated in his cross examination that due to darkness he could not see any thing at the place of incident. He has stated nothing in his cross examination and was thus declared hostile. Rajkumar (PW/3) who saw the respondent/accused while running away from the spot denied this fact in his statement. Motiram (PW/4) has also not supported the I statement of prosecutrix. Therefore, the evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable because she has seen nothing due to darkness and also Chensingh (PW/2), Rajkumar (PW/3) and Motiram (PW/4) have not supported her statement. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, after perusal of the judgment, it is clear that the learned lower Court did not err in acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. l am of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of learned lower Court. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after consndermg the material availabie on record as well as the elaborate Judgment Impugned passed by the Court below l am of he Vlew that m an appeal agalnst acqulttal if two views on the prosecution evidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one view- favourable to the accused persons then it Will not be permISSIble for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other poSSible View on the prosecution evidence. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is impeccable and flawless. 12.~ ln the resultt l do not find any such infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal which may warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal. 13. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of respondent/accused is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed I R.L. Jhanwar‘ Judge K i Sd/-