:..f ;'^? "'l^ ^'- ^. ^. Z-SA.a^ Z.N TH3. EIGH QOURT OTJ- JUDICATURS AT;-. JABALPUR JL.^^^ :— .^^' /M.cr,c<. No< 4°43 /'OF :i-">5 •- criminal Appeal.14 t { ' OF 1997 -APPELLANT ", r .l~. s tate;. pf . Madhya Pradesh• f-^^ ^^-•—•^ ••/ ^A \-^i ,J D, ^"' .T)^r%y. '-VERSUS- RESPQNDENTS ^^v -^y . ^TC'CUSED' ^%^'^-^)/K^^_ ^ff^.^-^^ ry ^'~.^'^/?^ ^SS) .< .;' .. ' .• -..,.•••' • ^/v< ' • \ ^ .$ l^ 'Harishkumar. 8/0 .^nand Dasaj:ii^ aged' 25•years^i " '' '. , • , , 2» ' Roopkvmar s/o'Anarid' Dasani], • aged ;35. years, . .' . Both,$iFe-res^deoe of .Nei^ KarK^t' ^ ^ Rajhara P< < . ^^|^J^^< ^i^^V^ ^ u. •^ ^34» - ^ ^.?^1^J^PPLIGATION_ FOR uEAVE TO.APpEAL_U/S:37S(^).'6R,) < SS3??!^i7']?p1?Sp7"5^SIi~"ii5^T5B'~^T8Tr5^^ p,j:,.;:: ^aA^-7'<3"7. ^^ (,.... HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1611of 1997 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Harishkumar and another Shri Praveen Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri Vaibhav Goberdhan Advocate on behalf of Shri Tamaskar counsel for the respondents/accused. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF| '.G. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (16.07.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order d^ted 11.02.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate first class, Balod, in Crimp Case NO.S50/1994 acquitting the respondents under Section 304-A IP(^. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.05.1 994 delivery of i Duleswaribai was performed by the respondents/accused. The allegajl against them is that they administered certain medicines and injecti^ns and also inserted their hands into the private part of the victim witl^out wearing gloves and without even removing their rings as a result of wltiich the she died because of excessive bleeding. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, prosecution 3. examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of accused/respondents were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Cod^ Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against t^em and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the appellanVState submits that on the basis of mat^rial collectedby the prosecution, the Court belowought to have convicted |the respondents/accused for the offence mentioned above but ignoring jthe same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondents, it has fallen jn a grave legal error. 5. On theother hand counsel for the respondents/accused supp^rts the impugned judgment and submits that the acquittal of the respond^nts linal 0ne Ition nas |the feof -2- is based on due appreciation ofthe evidence on record and hence it b^ing just andproper need not be interfered with. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the evidence of Vijay Kumar - the husbandof the deceased it appears that though he was not aware of the important facts yet he m^de the allegations against the respondents/accused. This apart, there |are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnes^es examined by the prosecution. Though the allegation is that while inserting his hand, respondent/accused Roop Kumar was aware of the ring worn| by him, he could not substantiate the same and the ring has also not been seized. Prosecution has not establishedthe fact that the deceased diedl on account of medicines being administered to her by |the respondents/accused. Evidence available on record shows that initi^illy Ram Kunwar Bai (PW-4) - the mid-wife was called for the delivery ^nd when she found the case complicated, the respondents were called. ^he has stated that after administering glucose salines to the deceased, |:he child was born normally. Thus the prosecution could not prove itscase|by leading cogent and reliable evidence and merely on the basis of presumption the respondents/accused cannot be held guilty. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record and b^ing very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal agai|nst acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by |he prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, ^his Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acqui|ttal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration), is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitt|ing respondents/accused of the charge under Section 304-A IPC, is just 4nd proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordin^ly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. lt| is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-l Pritinker D;iwaker Judge