Siagha Bench IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAsPUR AT CHHAm56ARH awn? ggw 03 @é No. ‘ alga? CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OE 2005 51am of Chha'msgarh THtfough Smion House Officer, Police Shfion- Parrhalgaon, Dis‘rr. Jashpur (C6) VERSUS Rnmcsh Shnrma, S/o Ram Shamn Sharma, Aged dbouf 35 years,‘ ,Occupa‘rion: Business, R/o Ward No. 2, Patrhalgaon, Disrr. Jahspur (CG) RESPONDENT APPLICA N OR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER 5EmON 378 A AND MEMORANDUM O APPEAL UNDER -CT.[ON 378; 1‘ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. / egg-W ‘ h ,. @ HIGH CEUQT QF {EHI-LQ’“ hGAEEH A'“ BEL§MPVK SE 2 HawgLE wa? JU3’E‘ECE PRE’i‘IE‘EKER EEWAKER m: M as m3 zzggzgw AP§31§€§E§T C‘taia 9f C1 hhai‘tis‘garh , feigrmw RE$¥§§JDE§ET$ Ramx3$h ‘SWaxma A?FLICATK)N ?C£ GRAE'“ ”F L‘JAVEV’I‘O I‘P”£AL §WE£L§Q SESTE’W 3?$§$‘g AWE VEVC‘ $3? AF?E&L U§DER “WCTE01% ’3”$§1§ Q3? THE {h Wemagw. 9&1 Panka. bhmlawavc‘, V L ASA 3m ammcant 6: rm @Ram m; v Lwam‘sgg Hwré on admission. Prasant petition fxlmi under $ection 378 g3} of the Cr P C is dirfnctsd against the imnucned jmigmimt ciated 9 3 9005 pas56& bV thé Specml Judge (Airocrues D13T31Ci Jaghpur m Cr. vase No.‘ .17J2GO4 whmeby the accusedjrespondent has been acquitted of the ehaxge 1eVeled against him unsier Sections 294 & 506 of the IPC & Secfion 3 (1)(X} of the Scheduied Caste/Scheduled Tlibe (Prevention of Atrocities) {Rt 2. Brief facts of the case are mat 0n 11.7.2S03, FER EXP; 4 was lotiged by Rac‘iheiai {P.W.— l) ailegmg in it that an 1.7.2003, at about 8.30 51.111. when he was sweeping near the bus stand, the accusedirespendent who was the owner of the J.P.Lodge, Patthaigaon reached on fhe sgmt and started abusing hm}. It is further allegeii that be was abused by his caste also. 8. In support of its case, the prosecfation has exammed as maay as seven witnesses including that of the Crompkajnant Radhelai (P. W. - l). n s ‘ 4 After rtacording thé avidance, the court balmy acquittsd the accused persons. Hence The presant petition. '5. P.‘W.—l Radhelal ill the FIR and in the staiement under Section 161‘ Cr.P.,C. has not given the details‘of the abuses made'by the accused 1311’: £11 hie court statement he has given a1} the details of the abusive kanguage. It appeare That he has improved his statement in the caurt. Lixevise Heeralel‘ P.W.~i2 £5 Ghanshyam {P‘W,-3) who are The eyewitnesses of the inckient have speciflcaily admitted irhe fact .‘that as they were workmgx with the compiajnarxt Radheial ihey have decided to falsely impiicaie the accused and that is Why they have made thestatement It is aiso arlmitted fact that one of the relative of the accused i1ame1y Ravi Chauhaxx had p1‘eviously lodged a resort against the compiamant ailci the saici case is pending for its adjudication. Likewise, one another relative of the accuseri nameiy Piyush Pandey has also lodged a report against the compiamamt anri me said case is aiso pench'ng. Thus rhe possibih‘iy of false impEcarion of the accused calmer, be ruled out. Furthermore, no mdependentwviiness has been examined by the prosecution though as per the own showing of P.W.-1, P.W.—2 85 Pill/E3 the incident had rakeu l place in a busy area like bus stand. 6. When the entire maierlal has been duly'consirlered by J the com? below while passing the impugnea judgment of acquittal, this couit also, after perusing the entiie record, finds no reason to mterfere with the same. 7. it is a settled position of lawin relation to cases ag ‘airlst acqiiittal. In a 13‘etition against ac(lulttal if two views are possihle on the basis of the evidence led hy' the prosecution anti the trial Court taking one View favourerl the accused, reversion ‘oi' the iindings of acquittal by tee appellate Couri taking the other yossible View into consideration is not permissible. . 8. This Court is of tha View that Th6 juc1gmant ’impugngd acquitting the respondentl accused of the oi'failce as al1€g€d is just alici proper. The petitLon fails and is accordmgly dismisssc'i. sag- ‘ \ Pritinker y; Judge Diwaker