:-1 IN W-S HIG.H COURI OF JU].£:GA3UKE A'T J.®AB5 ,. -:^^TTr: NlSG. GBIMIHAL CA3E N0. _ ~ "_'QE>. 2000' CFOd00089341 GBIMINAL APPEAL N0, OF 2000 .APPELLANT S Tbe State of Madhya Pradesh ft^v^' ^ (5^ ^<35 Veraus ' ; RESPONBE s Nanki Qau aon of Afaarap, aged 40 ysars, residen't of Katari ^olice Station Malkharoda District Janjgir - Champa (M.P.) APPLICAELON UITOSR SEC;TION 178<iii) FGR GRANT OF LEAVE TO 'APPEA AroEALUNHEE.SEC'riON 578(i5 OF THE GOpE OF GRIMINAL PROCEDURg . 1975 i—a-i---u_Q3, Wti 't,,.'';*!.,'1" S 1 •<Ss9'" ...? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J, Appellant Acauittal Appeal No.06/2009 State of Madhya Pradesh versus Respondent Nanki Dau, S/o. Atmaram, aged 40 years, resident of Katari Police Station Malkharoda District Janjgir -Champa(M.P.) ARDlication for leave to ADpeal u/s. 378(3)Cr.P.C. and Criminal Apbeal u/s. 37891VCr.P.C. aaainst acguittal .gFeggnt;. J^Shrj.S.K. IVIlsN-a, Panel Lawyerfor the State/appellant. ' ^:.^^-^:: :.^S^!fis^^ counsel for the respondent. y \ . ; .•,.^?;, .y"&R^ls£tUBGMENT. ;..-.. 1:\ :,'1 , :. .! '•'..^^;/.:'L-':^;'^^:^.,'^^ , " ' '' This criminal appeal is preferred bythe State againstthe order of acquittal dated 20.11.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakti, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.1110/97 by which he has acquitted the respondent/accused under Section 294 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.10.1997, the accused Nanki Dau and Babulal were quarrelling. At that time, hearing the noise, Geeta Bai, daughter of Babulal reached there and r •!slfc> irif11 :i:/%i IW3-!~ JI ~ss&,y ry '\<1 ^ "-"•--•^^a^-^i:. ltel?^E:;^ik:";&;;^^^ tried to save her father. In between the respondent/accused by pulling her hair thrown her to ground and stared abusing her and also pressed her breast. After that incident report (Ex.P/2) was lodged at Police Station Malkharoda. 3. After recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shakti, under Sections 294 and 354 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent. The charge was explained to the respondent who abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence and false implication. After taking evidence and hearing both the parties and after appreciation ofthe evidence, the learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of charge under Sections 294 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. Against thisjudgment, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued that there were ample evidence against the respondent, despite that, the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. 5. On theother hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties 1 have examined the evidence available on record. r" y.y It ^^,^^-nt^l'^f^'\ sSp'ggs'aBss^sss isa;s?;Esa 7. Learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent on the ground that there were discrepancies in the statement of the complainant, Geeta Bai and her statement was not supported by other evidence of the prosecution. 8. It is evident from the statement of Geeta Bai (PW-1) that she had not stated anything about the words used by the respondenVaccused who abused them. She only stated that the respondenVaccused pulled her hair and thrown her to ground and also pressed her breast. The matter was reported to the police station. She has further stated that she has given written report (Ex.P/1) also. In the cross examination, she has stated that her father and the respondent/accused are real brothers. 9. Ramcharan (PW/2) had witness the incident. He has also not stated the words uttered by the respondenVaccused. He has stated that the respondent/accused has only pulled the hair of Geeta Bai (PW/1) and stated nothing more in this regard and not supported the statement ofGeeta Bai (PW/1). 10. Babulal (PW/3) has stated that he and his brother Nanki Dao were quarrelling and in between Geeta Bai came there and the respondent thrown Geeta Bai on ground by pulling her hair and pressed her breast. But this statement was not supported by the independent witness Ramcharan (PW/2). It is also clear that Geeta Bai is the daughter of Babulal and there is an enmity between Babulal and the respondent/accused, though they are real brothers. It is clear that the statement given by Geeta Bai (PW-1) and Babulal were not supported by independent witness Ramcharan (PW/2). Geeta Bai and Babulal are relative witnesses and therefore their evidence is not reliable. Based on this view, the learned lower Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused, after evaluating the material evidence on record. The findings recorded by the lower Court are purely based o.n legal, clinching and credible evidence. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, 1 am of he view that in an appeal against acquittal if two views on the prosecution evidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one view favourable to the accused persons, then it will not be permissible for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other possible view on the prosecution evidence. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is impeccable and flawless. 12. In the result, l do not find any such infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal which may warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of respondent/accused is liable to be and is accordinglydismissed. Sd/- R .L. JHANWAR Judge