\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKARJ, J Criminal Appeal No. 2205 of 1999 Appellant Respondents Vs. State of Madhya Psradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Laxman and two others POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Sdf- JUDGE Jl^ -7-2009 /^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPU^ APPELLANT RESPONDENTS CriminaLApBeal No. 2205 of 1999 State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Laxman S/o. Shri Sajan Das Soni, Sindhi, r/o. Baniya Para, Dhamtari (CG). 2. Satpal, S/o. Shri Laxmandas Sindhi Soni, aged about 21 years, r/o. Baniya Para, Dhamtari, (CG). 3. Sanjay S/o. Shri Laxman Soni Sindhi, aged about 19 years, r/o. Baniyapara, Dhamtari (Application under Section 378 (iii) for grant of teave to appeal under Section 378(1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Ranganath Chandrakar, J. Present: Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellanVState. Shri N.P. Kostha, counse] forthe respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered on2.) July,2009) 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-3-1999 delivered in Criminal Case No.471 of 1998, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 448, 294, 506-B and 427 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts are that the complainant Manohar Lal (PW/2) had taken a shop on rent from the accused/respondents and was in possession of the same for the last 20 - 25 years. On 19-11-1991, the accused- respondents entered forcefully into the shop of the complainant, threw '\ the fruits, abused, threatened the complainant and committed marpeet with him. The FIR was lodged by complainant Manoharlal in Police Station Dhamtari. 3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondents. During trial the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, framed the charges under Section 448, 294, 506-B and 427 ofthe IPC. The accused/respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. After completion of evidence of the witnesses, the statement of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record and looking to the discrepancies and infirmities appearing on the statements of the witnesses, acquitted the accused/respondents of all the charges leveled against them as aforementioned in para 1 . 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellanVState submits that the judgment of the acquittal is erroneous on both facts and law and is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned trial Judge erred by not accepting the sufficient acceptable evidence appeared on record to prove the guilt against the accused/respondents. Learned counsel further stated that the learned trial Judge committed error of law while acquitting the accused/respondents. The judgment of the trial court is perverse to the evidence on record. Learned counsel lastly submits that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of the trial court be quashed and the accused/respondents be convicted for the charged offences. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued the matter in support of the impugned judgment of the lower Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the records of the trial Court and also the impugned Judgment. 8. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the accused persons examined five witnesses. 9. PW/1 Mohan Lal, stated in his deposition that he was carrying the business of fruits near Bajrang Temple at old Bus Stand. On the date of incident he was at Narharpur and on returning from there, he came to know about the incident that Satpal and Sanjay sons of accused Lakshmandas called some persons, purchased some fruits and abusing with filthy language threatened his son to kill. On the cross examination, he admitted that there was a dispute regarding the same shop between the parties and he was informed about the incident by Ashok Dodwani. 10.PW/3 Manohar Lal stated in his deposition that on the date of incident, the accused/respondents came to his shop situated at old Bus stand and started throwing the fruits and other items kept in the shop. They threatened him to vacate the shop. The accused/respondents were accompanied by some other persons. The witness made specific allegation that the accused/respondents assaulted him with rod and stool bench due to which he sustained injuries on his hands, legs and chest. He further deposed that the accused/respondents took away approximately Rs.5000/- kept by him in the shop. 11. The above two witnesses are the complainants in the case being father and son. Looking to their testimonies in the court, the discrepancies clearly appear and their statements are contradictory to each other. 12.The trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents on the grounds that the evidence of the material witnesses were not corroborated by each other as also there were material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses given before the police and in the court and '\ the important witness Doctor Panchore was not examined by the prosecution. 13.1-lon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh and others, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 43, held that "in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence on record, but having done so it will not interfere with the order of acquittal unless it finds the view of the court acquitting the accused to be unreasonable or perverse. If the view recorded by the court acquitting the accused is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record, the order of acquittal ought not to be reversed". 14.Applying the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 1 am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the respondents is a possible and reasonable view of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. I, therefore, find no reason to take a different view on re- appraisal of evidence. Acquittal ofthe respondents is well merited 15.For the foregoing reasons, l find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge S^aju