^ © ngie Dg»^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. ^ 3^.0 1 of2005 ; A L/?i ——^f^3& APPLICANT ,^— r^oy ^ta A^t*> 0.^ 0) Rajaram, S/o Shri Maaoh^- Gond, Aged about 62 years, R/o - Village - Dhajasir, Thana 8& Tehsil - Bilaigarh, Raipur, (C.G.) ^ T^ vs. }^\ RESPONDENTS 1. 2. Dhanesh Kumar, S/o Shn Nankun Sahu, Aged about 29 years. Rameshw^.y^- 'fc-' S/o- Shn^Bhansingh Gond, Aged about - 37 years. Both are residents of ViUage - Dhansir, Thajia &, Tehsil - Bilaigarh, Rgipur, (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OP SPECIAL LEAVE U/S 378^(4) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINSNT ' JUDGEMENT OF ACOUI^AL DATED 28/09/^005 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASRlAR (Hon.Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker) AcquittalAppeaI N0.47 of 2009 AKPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS Rajaram Dhanesh Kumar and another Shri Y.C. Sharma counsel for theappellant. Shri Aman Kesharwani counsel for the respondents. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 fiy OF TME CODE QF CRIMINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (04.02.2011) Ttiis appeal has been filed against the judgment arid order dated 28.9.2Q05A passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, B^Icida^ Bazgr in C^plamt Gase^^^^^^N^ respondents/accused ofthe?QffencesunderSection 384 IPG. 2. Facts of Ihe case ihbriefarethafpn 1.9.1997 acomplaint case was filed by fhe ap^ellant herein alleging ^ respond^nts/accused had committed an offence underSec;tiQn^384 IPC.As per the case of the cQffiplamant, he is Ijvi^jn^Hlage^^ Dhansir, Police Station and Tehsil Bilaigarh and haying agnciLiltyjil;| land,partition ofwhich has been done byhisfath^jtisallegedthat in the last year thereto respondenVaccuse^ Dtiahest^^h^haci, become Sarpanch of Grarri Panchayat directed thie;'vil|f^er& HG»I?^ collect Tendu leaves though his son was app6jFrt|d^t:)y'.(he Rorest Department as member of the committee and Fad A^^s^^t is alleged that his son hact asked the villagers to col1ect^h©|Jeridu leaves as a resuJt pf which there was some ^ispLrte fe^een accused/Fespondent No/1 Dhanesh and the son ofthe c^ namelyYogeshwarS!ngh7ltisallegedthatjusttotakereve^ hls son, respondeht No. 1 Dhanesh had issued certain djrectiOns against him in respect of partition in his family but as the said directjons were not carried out by him, respondent/accused Dhanesh started keeping ill will against him. It isalleged that as the partition \- •^- has not been accepted by him, accused Dhanesh being Sarpahch and accused Rameshwar being Panch imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500 on the complainant and also socially boycotted him. It is alleged that when a penalty of Rs. 1000 was again imposedon the complainant, he had lodged the report and as no action was taken thereon, the presentcomplaint case came to be filed. It is alleged in the complaint that when certain villagers started talking to him, they too have been imposed penalty by the respondents/accused. It is thus the case of the complainant that by socially boycotting him, the respondents/accused have committed an offence under Section 384 IPC. 3. In support of their case, the complainant has examined five witnesses namely Rajaram (CW-1), Chheduram (CW-2), Ramsai (CW-3), Gopidas (CW-4) and Charan (CW-5) whereas the respondents/accused have examined four witnesses namely Jahrilal (DW-1), Vijay Singh (DW-2), MoharSingh (DW-3)and Durpat Singh (DW-4). 4. Witnesses examined by the respondents/accused including Jahrilal (DW-1) who is the brother of the complainant have put forth a different story. From the evidence of the witnesses it appears that family partition which has not been accepted by the complainant, is the genesis of the dispute. It also appears that the matter was then taken up in the Panchayat which had directed the parties to comply with its certain decision butthe same has not been done. 5. Thus in totality of the factsand circumstances of the case in particular keeping in view the provisions of Sections 383 of the Indian Penal Code and 44 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that no case under Section 384 of the IPC is made outagainst the respondents/accused. Furthermore, being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possibleon the basisof 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 T^ the considered opinion thatthe judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offence under Section 384 IPG, 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 ^ ^h » ' ^