's'" fi^ JiEi^.-. %.'"... f''csfWKS'tsss:S 3y^/4? THi HIGH COURT O? MA ,aiY,LjrL4=E2H,_M_^l£ ^ M.CR.C. N0. ____^:ll______/1997i> GRIMIKAL APsEAL N0. - '--\ ~b ^ TrE STATE OF M.P. THROSGH POLIGE STATION DONGAGARH -VER3U3;- APiELLAiCTs RESPOMDESWS.-^ s- 1) MS^ RO£:HAN SINGH S/D JANGBAHAI3M RAJPOCS,, 52 YSARte, •R/0 THETHAV.AR PARA / IONGARGARH. 2) aANTOSH 3/0 GOVINCTi.AM SAIlU, 25 YEARS, R/0 ACEOLI, BOIH RESIIEM OF -POLICE SlATIOIi- EONGARGARH. -APPLIGATION FOR IEAVE 10 AP1BAL Ui^ER SECTION 57S(3.)_ ^^^jL.l<^Ms^l-iJs£SS^^SmS.-.^^3MISSS!^£^£.^L.. -.7 y f' .vf'Si-y.tnSsass^siasiWr't'W^ X w ff yf''M'e^S^fx sft^f's"Sg'^!'^K iSII ^^^^^^^^^^^^' WtU&ass 7ysiiS^'S^i'SW iSSSSSS K^^^^^^i^; jSS a m- » ^^SSSSSSs l;B@^^®iS^]^S ts:vss-SSS^SsSs^! :v^!:^ m- aai s8S 9^@ *'! .it, i ms » : . w- •Bt— ;;:f^33^SSS^EE!iSK!;"E®!S"3;'BSS; W3yS!S8KSiii& ^^•SffiWSKBBS®^ .iSsUSBstUis'tSSIBSIiS.is K^BBpSBSiBiBKgBS yiisiss'ssssvf's':' WSSWSSSSSSSSsUSSS'-s}. ^^-SEi^iSi^BSBSSSiS.;1- I. SMSl; vssss, ^:^K^^^i['C^^^^^^g^j"^^| ^®f^^^^£^%SffiK^@!ISS! tgg Bl3';i l^SS^SSSi^Si f^'-^'^^Sfi'^.^^^^'^^'^i'^^^jh'^^-'.L:.' ^d*i^ttari!^^^^a*a^sBa^^^^;^)UISI^? ?>;CTBi'8SSgBBSSB's9'^%gSrei ^BISBiBgEiSSSBSSIK :<W£;: R '& wss: ^^wfis0s^33SsSSSSSi:B's^ ^K'MtSiSSsSSiSSag^S :^^^SK3gSSSIHg!Bffi V'ffi'WiUSSSSSSS^ ^%^-§gji8RSaSSt ^ ^'^ I^SI, n msiit & w;' S^^'^^'-'s-'iSs^S^^^'^i'i'S 'f"*' :^ ^^ » ffi ff UK'Kli 1111 SI yss^ ?|S|^; &S; iSS? 'S'fK '••-.. ^:: 'ss, vw-s II: 'TIV i 1W •;eti; :a: m B Q ^ i9: ,^^, ii':'";; ^ 4. After hearing fh.e parties, the trial Court has acquitted ftie aGcused/respoiidents fpr fhe offence as inentioned above. Hence fhe pnesent appeal. 5. Conteiltion ofShti Das, COunselfer fhe applicairt/State is fhat fhe Cpiut below has uttei^ lailed io appieeiate t^ evidence as adduced by the prQsecTition. He submits fliat ffie accused persoas ought to Iiave been coiwicted by flie GOTirt below. 6. Qn the other haad, it faas tieen ar^ded by S3iri BadgatiyaiL, coT.uisel for tfie accused/Tespondeats that 110 legal admissibfe evidence has been adduced by the plxiseeuticjn to cpiwiGt thc accused/respondetfts. He submits that thfc iiieiiloiaiidum wituesses Iia.ve tunied hostile aad fhere is nothing on record against the aeeused/ responderits. y..' ^|;I.fcawe^^hjeai^,:couiiset^fOF.;^t^ |Jujagi3|e|||Ela J^U^|iBa|l:Gna|s^raiIai^ iwsas-d. %::::i^311S*J33iSBSilifttfBSS^SMEB8SS&^ffi^M11':^ iilE'26aDS!iBileBUIei tijKSs!i3EeeB"Siiiihi 'tSSlS^si^^S^KeSS'^S'-:::^.'-:'^^^ ^WBEg|^^^@BBc||BJ1:^iN^ ||^|fflg||3e^Jg^^|jEE^ii| IBfitsN§atliiBBBSIa|Blt VfS^ SBK 'iBIBUBK ^Beir|g @ve^!Mg?aGC38i®a<3^j1B?|8|2 ^nusstble^:Bv|u}fiiK;e':'agaiia^;'Eh®j wigBitSKa eyia5:fh!e^!Stolejt:i.;|)iio@e|<t,''i i^gffiliit' .,2l!SyntENsBii:;tias^B: :]sm?1^1*fijere.;is:-:aQ .Qthei-le w particu]a3^ !fhe view takeuj possibleview.It is a settledj possiBIe on the baais Qf tlie rgs|iorufents on wKicll Basis -•Ehey Gau be conwieted. Moreover afllBr due appreejatipa, •tbie Court below has arrived t6 a: particular conjolusipn df"aequittu}jg fhe aceused/respondeuts. 8. I fit&d no reason t6 aatei-fere iD. ;flie judgraent o¥acquit ,by. Aei'o6urt. lielow is ;one .of (8g position oflaro itt relatioa.to^is^"T^: agaitist ^acquittal, ni a pettti&a agauast; acquittal if twoivifews Bvifience.led By $h.e:BFOsei3tifKMa:^ the fcHat C(>uit takulg Qne; vltew i&yoaaaed 1^|: accuse^^ w ;B!!a m iii .»>• pf ttie findings of acquittal by fhe appeUate Court taking fhe ofher possitele view iatd cbnsideration is not permissible ui law. 9. This Court is of fhe view that the jydgment unpugned acquittm.g the respoadents/aceused pf ttie Qffence as alteged is just and proper; Accopflm.gly, tfie leaye as sought fiir fcy tKe appUcaut/State for registration of appeal agahist fhe judgilteat -~-~—^—— ofacquittalisherebyrefused. j g^y. j Pritinker Diwaker j Judge H'^i ^u KW -ft!J: