HI\\ ’ x DlVlSiON BENCH CORAM: Aggellant HGN’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI $UNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. N Cr. M. P. No. 183 of 2008. District TheHState Magistra of Chhattisgarh, Through (CG) te, Janjgir Champa VERSUS 1., about Dharamdas, 38 years, S/o R/o Bhimram, Gram Hardi Aged (Aamapara) Navagarh. 2 Panchram, S/o Ghasiram about 25 years, R/o G , Aged P‘s. Navagarh. ram Hiragarh, 3 about Ramchandra, 65 years S/o Devlal, Aged RS. Nava , R/o Gram Karra, garh, District Janjgir C.G. . Present : Shrl' Akhil A State/petiti (05m Apm, 2010) The following order of the Court Ra}eev Gupta, C.J. By aHowing LA.No.02/2008; the docume this applioation are taken grawal, learned Panel La onen wyer, for the was passed by nts fired arong with on record. GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR @ 2) Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, is heard on l.A.No.01/2008, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner/State has‘succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 4) l.A.No.01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 75 days in tiling the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned. 5) Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondentsi accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra. 6) Police Pamgarh, District Janigir Champa, after completion of the investigation of the case registered about unnatural death of one Ramkrishna Kashyap, charge-sheeted respondents/ accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra, on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Ramkrishna Kashyap on 12.10.2006. 7) The respondents/ accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8) At the trial, the above charges against the respondents! accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of Z, PW-1 Ramphal Kashyap, PW-2 Shyamlal, PW-3 Dileep ‘Kumar, PW-4 Babulal, PW-5 Janmejai Singh, PW—6 Dileshwar, PW-7 Manharan, PW-s Dr KK Dahire, PW-9 Kirtanlar, PW-10 Amarlal, PW-11 Ramkirtan, PW-12 RL Bada, PW-13 Rajeshwar, PW-14 Gendram and PW-15 Devanand. 9) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of thé entire evidence led by the prosecution at the tria'l found that the prosecution evidence feil short of establishing the above charges against the respondentslaccused persons. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted respondents! accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra vide impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007. 10) Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds and in recording acquittal of respondents/accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra. Learned Panel Lawyer further submitted that, the evidence of PW—1 Ramphal Kashyap and PW-7 Manharan about the incriminating circumstance of deceased Ramkrishna Kashyap having been seen last alive in the company of accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra and the other evidence available on record is more than sufficient to establish the charge of murder against them. 11) Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account available in the case to connect the respondents / accused persons with the alleged commission of murder 0f deceased Ramkrishna Kashyap. They'reintire prosecution case against the respondents I accused , . 7 . \ M persons was founded on the circumstantial evidence alone. The main incriminating circumstance against the accused persons projected by the prosecution at the trial was that deceased Ramkrishna Kashyap was last seen alive in the company of accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra by PW-1 Ramphal Kashyap and PW-7 Manharan. PW-1 Ramphal Kashyap in para 4 of his deposition admitted that he was disclosing about the fact of his brother Ramkrishna Kashyap being taken away by accused Dharamdas for the first time in the Court and the Police never recorded his case diary statement. The other witness about the above incriminating circumstance Le PW—7 Manharan in para 1 of his deposition stated that he could not identify the persons who was riding the motorcycle and the other who was sitting behind the deceased. Thus, there is no reliable evidence to establish the alleged incriminating circumstance of deceased Ramkrishna Kashyap having been seen last alive in the company of accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra. 12) The remaining incriminating circumstance of there being inimical background between the deceased and the accused persons, in our opinion, is not by itself sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of the capital charge of murder. 13) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents ! accused persons; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Coutt heading to acquittal of respondents / accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 14) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 15) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 16) The petition filed by the petitioner / State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondentsi accused persons Dharamdas, Panchram and Ramchandra, therefore, fails and is heregdismissed. 5d/— sit/— l ‘ SUNIL KUMAR s'INHA , . cmEF JUSTICE z\ ,. Judge r/ l / l