\- -^<^A I^ THE HIGH COUI^T 02^ ^W^(M.P.) ^TURE AT i.TAI Ac^i^li^ 'msC.CRI.CASE No .__J_^^2—OF2°°S ^^1^^ CRIHINAL APPEAL Mo.' OF 2000 s-":te; k^ .^''-"^:t ^"^ ^w\^> .^^> ^^u!: ^yy. '//" <T -•' . y APPEI.LANT APFLICANT E?ESPONDENTS The Sfcate of Madhya Pradesh -VS.-- l^ Bheem s/o Shri Nanda Uraon^ aged about 35 years, r/o Village Parla^ Police Station: Bang^-o.^District; .. ' Korba,(M,P«5 2* Hunna son of Shrl Bub^rzi uraon^ ag.ed about 30 yec3.rs , r/o.Village Tarla^ Police Station Bango^District Kor?oa,(M..P. ) APPLICATION UIJ]:)ER SECTIOK 378 (iii) FGR GRANT OF L£AVE TO APPEAL -ETNDER. SECTION , 378(1) OF THE C©DE GP GRJNINAL 'PROCEDUR -E, 1973. ; • •• *__ ^--1. ^__^_- ^ .^^-^ _._a ^..* ^•L-.-.^-r;- . ^ 2-\./- ?• •• : tf v". '•:. MI.6.H COURT.O.P.CHHATrXSeARH.AT BX-t.ASPlfR (Hori.'N.r.Justlce •Pritm.gcer Dlwaker) ..Acqvlttai,Appeal-N€)>,..©7of 2009 APP.ELLANT VERSUS-: State of Madhya Pradesh Bheem.and another Shn' Prayin D.as, Dy. G.A. for t'ne State/appeilant. Shri Matln Sid'dlqul under the authority of Shri Vikash Pandey,. counsel for the respondent. OF ; ... . " . ' . (28,01.2011) . • ..'••. ',; ^ The present appeal'anses out of the.judgment and order dated 10.08.1999 passed by Judjdal Mag.istr^te Rrst CIass/ Katghoda, District - BJSaspur In Cnmlnal Case No. 1515/97 .acqulttjng th.e respondents of the offence under Section 379 'oflPC. . ' • • .. -...• • • .. 2. Brief. facts ,of th.e are that on 'ti'ie basis of .written report'Ex.'P-;! made by Laxmlkant Sharma ;(PW-y, the forest ''gu..ard/"-FIR- £x.P-9 v»fas 'regjstered ag.a|nst' .the'.resRond'ents under Section .379 of IPC, Jhe al:!egatjo.n';''ag'a.inst the respondents is that on 13.10.t:99:5:'''at abo.Mt.S'.l.S.p.m. upon re.ceiving a secrete inform^tion ";.to., tne ."effecf-that tne resDondents are loading 13 p|ej%s pf Stea -wood In a'truck, when the compiainant reacbecl fhe spot and caiied ;the respondent/accused No.l nametyBhe^rl^the respo^ncleptts, ran. away from the spot. After investigation the challan was fiied and the accused/respGndents were prosecuted. '-^' -z- 3. So as to hold the accused/respond.ents gusity., prosecutson has examined 10 wltnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of CriminaE Procedure In wh'ch they denied the charges Sevelled agalnst them. and p.1eaded their innocence and faise jmplication In the case. 4. After heari.ng the partses the-tria!- Court has acqujtted th.e accused/respondents of the otfence under Section 379 of IPC 5. Heard counseS for the parties and perused the material avaliable on record includlng thejudgment impugned. 6. Contention of the iearned counsel for the appelSant/State is that on the basls of matersai collected by the Drosecutlon, the Court beiow ought to have convlcted the accused/ respondents for t'ne offence under section 379 IPC but ignoring the same and thereby awardlng acquittal to the respondents, it has fallen In a grave Segal error. 7. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that-the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance wlth iaw and there is no inftrmlty in the same. He submits that the witnesses Amolsal (PW-2) and Chinta Ram (PW-5) have not fully supported the prosecution case. He'further submits that there is six days' delay in lodging the FIR whlch has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution as the inddent had taken place on 13.10.1991 whereas the report has been lodged on 19.10.1991. 8. Ail the aspects have been duiy considered by the Court beiow while passing the impugned judgment of acqulttaS and I find no ilIegaSity and Inflrmlty In the same. e> ':\: -3 - 9. Thus after going through the materiai arvalSable on record and being very much consdous of the exjstsng tegal posjtion that jn an appeal against acqulttaj jf two views are possjble on the basis of evidence led by the prosecutfon and the triai Court taking one view favoured the accused^ this Court is of the considered opjnjon that reverslon of the findjngs of acqulttal by the appeijate Court taking the other plausjble view jntoconsideratjon/ is not permissible jn iaw and therefore the judgment impuQned acquittlng accused/respondents of the offence under Sectson 379 of IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordlngly, the appea! being without substance is iiable to be djsmlssed.it is accordingiy dismjssed. 1 . ' ! • Sd/- (^^ 1 pritinkerDiwaker Judge ^