-»^' 'ki&y A^ "'^ IN THE HIQH CSPffi- OP MAiarA ISADBS& AT JABAI.RJR. •W i'»V» . - t ;\-^--< , /i ^sy&^ e, GaiMIBAL APEEAI. N0. ^STS:: APEELLANT:- •(- t(\i.^-~t t.137 f SI,p|..-.,'.toB...., SE.spoiammss- *~^&d sr?.".<'a.,< tv **< fr^ »feittd*b<fc^ttjff sy '^npi &ac:yait- TBE STAIE OF M.P. THBOUGH BI^RIC'i' ,»A&IS1'RAI ; BAIGARHCNP)./- - ., —vsas@s- ' S- ^ 1)_HEERARAM S/0 LACHHIRAM KSLAE, 27 YEABS. _....-- 2) TULffittM S/0 IAGHHI&AM KALAR, ^- • ASE^W^^' :e ^-^^ Blo.AR. *P%IGA^E»T®_IEATO 10 AEEEAL GNISR gEGTI@g__378(35 CR.P^ ^fffiAi. masa SEG^t6H y/Sidl~^.KQ7" ~~"~~'m """t''f "'"' l-^' BOTH_SESIEEHT OF GRAM-BHALNAR.A, POLIGE_STATION.<HAEtASIYA, IABSEEL- KH&RASIYA, DISTRIGT-^AIGARHCMP) . -. / H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Singie Bench ; Hon'bie Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J. Cr.Aopeal No.372 of 1997 .iy APPELLANT RESPONDENTS The State of M.P. (now State of C.G.) y VERSUS Heera Ram and another. APPJJCATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDERSECTION 378 (3)CR. APPEAL UNDERSECTJON 378 (1) CR.P.C. Present: Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Government Advocate for the appellant/State. Shri Afroj Khan, counsel for the respondents. QRAL JUDGMENT (29.04.2011) This appea! is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.1996 passed bythe Judicial Magistrate FirstGiass, Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 532/1995 acquitting the respondents under Section 325. and323ofthel:P.G. ; 2. Brfef facts of the case are that ori 30.11.1995 a report was lodged by Ghasiya Ram (P.W.1) alieging that on 29.11.1995 at about 8.00 p.m. he wasassaulted.by respondents by mearis of club. This report was entered In the Rojnamchasana yide Ex.P.1 and later on F.I.R. Ex.P,4 was registered on 01.12.1995againstthe respondents under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigafion, challan was fited 6n / . ' . . ' 17.12.1995 ag&inst the respondents and Leelaram D.W.1 under Section *• / • 325 ofthe I.P.C. and subsequently Leelaram was dischargsd byth©tnal Cburton 14.02.1996. 3. ' So as fo ho!d the-.accused/appeSlants guilty, prosecution has examihed as m^ny as 7 witnesses in supporf of its case. Statement&gf the accused/respondents.were also recorded ynder Section 313 Qis|B^ Cr.R.C. in which they denied the circumstances afipeaqng agaiiiistltJin'ti -•< and pleaded their innocence and faise implication in crime in questioh. That apart, 2 defence witnesses were also examined by the accused respondents. . '•» 4. After providing opportunity of the hearing to the parties, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents. Hence, this appeal. "y • • '' . 5. Shri Praveen Das, counsel appearing' for the appeilant/State, contended that based on the evidence by the prosecution, the Court betow ought to have convicted the respondents. His next contention is that Ex.P.6, medicaf report of Ghasiya Ram, supports the case of prosecution and on the basis of thls document and the statement of Ghasiya Ram also, the respondents ought to have been convicted by the Court beiow, 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, Shri AfroJ Khan, counse! appearing for the respondents, argued that as per the report of the compfainant, of which, the entry was made in the Rojnamchasanah Ex.P.1, the entire incident was witnessed by Mahat Ram and FiF,^ai, wife of injured Ghasiya Ram, but these two important witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that Leelaram D.W.1, the discharged accused, was cited as defence witness and he has not supported the case of prosecution. He aiso submitted thaf similar is fhe position where Benuram P.W.4 has not also not supported the case of prosecution. He further argued thaton the report of accused/respondent*Tularam, acase was registersd vide Ex.D.1 against the complainant on 30.11.1995. Lastly, it has been argued that incident occurred about 15 years back, the view taken by the Court below is one ofthe possible and piausibte view and inview of thesettied iegai position, theju^gmsnt impugned cannotbe aitered. -/ 7. ,.. l;have::heard counset appearing for the parties at iength and perused ffie-Judgment impugned including record of Court be!ow. 8. Admittedty^Mahat Ram and Fir Bai, who could have been the best witnesses for-the prosegEition, have not been examined in the:Court. Further.'there is nb dispute that the report lodged by the accused TylaiSiffli; I;7!?B!n»l»-— - ^j^n^flD "^ - m^ ^^y •^y -\ was entered in the Rojnamchasanah EX.D.1 on 30.11.1995. Leefaram D.W.1, who was arrayed as one of theaccused and was later on discharged, has not supported the prosecution case and was cited as defence witness. Though Ghasiya Ram (P.W.1) has supported his case but the same has not been supported by other evidence, as per requirement of !aw. The statementf'of Ghasiya Ram (P.W.1) and Lalith Kumar (P.W.3) has not be^n found very reliabie by the trial Court. Benuram (P.W.4) and other eye-witnesses of the incident have not supported prosecution case. Even the investigating officer T.L. Dewangan (P.W.6) has admitted the. fact in'para 4 of his cross-examination that a report was also iodged on 30.11.19% by the accused Tularam. All the aspects have been deait with by the trial Court while arriving at a particular conclusion. 9. Thus minute examination of the materia! availabie on record goes to show that the findings of the Court beiow based on the grounds adumbrated above appear to be fully justified. This Court does not see any infjrmjty_pr iliegality in the same. Furthermore, being very much consciousofthe existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecuSion and the trial Courttaking one view Tavoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissibie in law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting fhe respondents/accused of the offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the I.P.C., is just and proper and does not warranf any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appea! being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd'- Pritinker Diwaker Judge iw^w^sriJKs^E^'r^'; i'-'VXW^SSS'i'