mg HIG. COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR DIVISICN EENCH CGRAM: EOWBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. HON’BLE $HR! $UN&L KUMAR $§NHA, J. CLMP. No.3§ of 2G09 $tate of Chhattisgarh. Thmugh: District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) Anmicant VERSUS Mohd. MaabuL 8!:1 Mahd. :kba: Musa:man, Aged about 30 years. R/o. BBC. CaHony, Khurshigar Gate Near Padda Pride, GE. Road BhilaE, PS. Chhawani, District — Durg (C.G.) Permanent Rio. Viiiage Kamthi, Near Abdduia Shah Dargah, RS. Kamthi, District Nagpur, (Maharashtra) Non-apniicants. 2 Maiiu (gig Mohd. Salim. ‘S/o. Shekh Rajjak Musaimari, Aged about 39 years. R/o. Zone—2 Khurshipar, Near Tailor Shop of Baba Balaknath Mandir, Shastri Nagar, P.S. Chhawani, District — Durg (C.G.) Amiication for grant of ieave to apneai Uls. 378(3i and memoraridiim of appeai Uls. 378m of Crimiriai i—‘rocadare code. ‘iWit. Present : Shri Akhii Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate for the Statei’petitioner. ‘ oRDER (15m Marsh. 2910) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, Cu}. Shri Akhii Mishra, iearned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on IA No.1/2009, an application for condonation of the deiay in fiiing the petition under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner] State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the petition under Section 378(3) 6f the Cr.P.C. 3) lA No.1/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents l accused persons Mohd. Maqbul and Mailu @ Mohd. Salim. 5) Police Chhawani, District Eurg after compietion of the investigation of the case registered about the unnatural death of deceased Ghanshu @ Ghanshyam, charge-sheeted respondents/ accused persons Mohd. Maqbul and ivlallu @_ Mohd. Saiim for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the lF’C and Section 25 of the Arms Act on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Ghanshu @ Ghanshyam in the intervening night of 10‘“ amt 11*“ of December, 2006. 6) Respondents / accused persons iVlohd. Maqbui and lVlallu @ Mohd. Salim abjured their guilt and pleaded false impiication to the i charges framed by the trial Court under $ections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 7) At the triai, the above charges against the respondents/ accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of soiitary eyewitness PW/B Ramu @ Ram Singh and the alieged seizure of the weapons of offence at the instance of the accused persons. 8) The triai Court on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence ied by the prosecution at the triai in general and that of PWI8 Ramu @ Ram Singh in particular, found that the prosecution evidence feii short of estabiishing the above charges against the accused persons. The triai Court, therefore, acquitted respondents / accused persons Mohd. Maqbul and Maiiu @. Mohd. Salim vide impugned judgment dated 19.02.2008. 9) Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of PW/8 Ramu @ Ram Singh on fiimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Deputy Government Advocate further submitted that the evidence of PWI8 Ramu @ Ram $ingh which was corroborated by the evidence of seizure of weapons at the instance of the accused persons establishes the charge of murder against the accused persons. 10) From the First information Report, we gather that the body of deceased Ghanshu @ Ghanshyam was found lying in the morning of 11.12.2006. Neither in the Merg intimation nor in the First information Report, any one, much less respondentslaccused persons Mohd. Maqbui and Maiiu @ MohdA Salim were named as the assailants of deceased Ghanshu @ Ghanshayam. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the First information Report that some unknown person was the assaiiant of deceased Ghanshu @ Ghanshyam. The solitary eyewitness PWIS Ramu @ Ram Singh in his evidence before the triai Court did not support the prosecution case and turned hostiie. _ He was cross-examined by the prosecution at iength, but nothing could be elicited which may establish the charge of murder against the accused persons. So far as the seizure of weapons of offence from the accused persons is concerned, on the iron pipe said to have been seized at the instance of accused Mohd. Maqbut, no blood stains were detected on the chemical examination. Though, on the knife said to have been seized at the instance of accused Mallu @ Mohd. Saiim some biood stains were found, on chemical and serological examination no human blood was detected on the knife. ii) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents / accused persons Mohd. Maqbul and Maliu @ Mohd. Salim; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of PW/8 Ramu @ Ram . Singh in particular (a copy of his deposition before the trial Court was made avaitabie by iearned Deputy Government Advocate for our perusai during the course of hearing); and the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trlai Court ieading to acquittal of l 5?:7 respondents / accused pers01%s Mohd. Maqbul and Manu @ Mohd. Saiim do not suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal. 12) v Mere poseibiiity of another View on the prosecution evidence wili not by itseif be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeai against acquittai. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents f accused Mohd. Maqbul and Mallu @ Mohd. Salim, fails and is hereby dismissed. /“:;1’ a hatter/still: l ’ p ChieflJusu'ce l i"? I )LHV