.•^•N' '" ^ IN THE HIGK' SoimT'';GF ' JUiSlCM'URC'AT i ' JABALPUR • ' M^r."c..'~io7:^*gBy~oP"1|I? Criminal Appeal No« 35% OF 19?g wfv^Qn^}cnrh "u v^nn<^l), ^ APP.ELLANT RESPOlTDgNTS ^< &ySk.. §@46S^^^, ^^ . .^u.'.\\<.-3"7-. el*"<1^'""•»*<•fl»>t»9e«iK.@ "^.^......... "" >w •'•,•-»<-((»»9l <»^»^- ^w»»»ftSew<»B •@»0®W%® 9Sf^96SS '. < t State of Madhya Pradesh throiigh P<»s^ Supela Bhilai^nis tt< Durg <IVIP) <» -VERSUS.- , • • -' . . , •. . . ' ; • ^ .$; slirikanfe aliaa Sh^ikant- Rai^S/o Rajnarayan^ aged 28 years^ R/o Model TOWH^ P^Sa ;Supela Distt.- Durg (]!.ffi>),» 2^ Perman^nfc s/o RajaiQp aal, aged 82 years^ •R/o Modei 'To^n^ P*S^''Supela., Distfc< Durg(KP)^ :G^ION'^OR,I^E/WI; TO APPEAL,_Ut^E ^ ,^ .CRIMI^L-APPEM/^^Jp3ER^^SEC^iC^~378Cl) CR..P.C./ ^S-^.:A.__e^ -—-— .--i-i.— -^-—^-•a-.^e-&.-Ji£\.i'3___.i^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 1998. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh. Shrikant alias Shrikant Rai and another L-. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri Sanjay Agrawal counsel for the respondents. CRIMtNALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THECODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (27.01.2011) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31.7.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 575/1993 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.5.1993 vide Ex. P-5 information was given from the Bhilai Hospital to the police that on that day the injured namely Anandi Prasad (PW-6) was admitted in the hospital after sustaining injury with battle axe. Based on this, FIR (Ex. P-17) was registered and the case diary statements of the witnesses were recorded on 21/22.6.1993. Victim was medically examined on 17.6.1993 vide Ex. P-8. After investigation challan was filed on 10.9.1993 for the offences under Sections 326 307/34 IPC. However, the Court below framed the charge against them under section 307 IPC only. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence -2- and false implication in the case. This apart, two witnesses namely Harbhajan Singh (DW-1) and O.P. Gupta (DW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. As during the pendency of this appeal accused / respondent No.2 Parmanand has expired, this appeal confines to accused/respondent No.1 Shrikant alias Shrikant Rai, only. 5. Counsel for the appellanVState submits that the Court below has committed a grave error of law in acquitting the respondent/accused though there is ample evidence on record so as to ensure his conviction. He submits that undisputedly the victim had suffered injury on head and fracture of right parietal bone and remained hospitalised for 16 days and therefore the Court below ought to have convicted him under Section 307 IPC. hle submits that while passing the judgment impugned the testimony of the eyewitnesses has been completely ignored. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is an inordinate delay in registration of the offence against the accused/respondent and no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution for the same. He submits that on 30.5.1993 itself the information was given by the hospital authorities to the police vide Ex. P-5 but even then the FIR came to be registered on 21.6.1993 and this delay of more than 20 days in doingso remained unexplained. This apart, he submits that the medical report of the victim is of 17.6.1993 whereas the victim suffered injuries on 30.5.1993. He submits that the statements pf the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 21/22.6.1993 and this delay too has not been properly explained by the prosecution. He submits that Investigating Officer namely G.R. Sinha (PW-9) has categorically stated that he received the information from the hospital on 17.6.1993 and accordingly the offence was registered on 21.6.1993 '%. J %s^?.';:i '^* s'""' 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record, considering the fact that there is unexplained inordinate delay in registration of the offence and medical examination of the victim and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offence under Section 307 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge