y v\;i Sngle Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &CT.C. N0. ) 1 ^A006) ^^ ^ c^ /^ Cri.Appeal No. ' 2006 APPELLANT APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer : P.S.: Baikunth-pur, Distt.: Koria [Chhattisgargh] VERUS 'SPONDENT Anuj Kumar, S/o Sitaram, Cast:Mjhwar, aged about 27 years, R/0 .—••°.°:';"^A^aged about 27 yec ^l%d^^..^rtjM^vmage: Amapara, .,^rF^fffe^'' polic~e _.sta'tion:. ^.ri^n by^f^Q^^Yi^ j^"-^"'" ^ Baikun- <&> J( thpur, Distt.: Koria. APPLICATION FOR, GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 FSr^ND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 flF OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT B21,ASPUR SB : HONyBLB MR. JUSTICE PmTIMKBR DEWAKBR Acd.A. No. 51/2009 APPELLANT RBSPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh Anu] Kuinar Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. G.A. for the State/applicant. Shri Maliendra Dubey for the respondent. APPEAL U/S 378(11 OF THB CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE JUDQMBNT 130.04.2010t The present appeal adses out 6f tlie. judgnient and order dated 16/12/2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First ClasSy Baikiinthpur, Distt, Koria (Chliattisgarh) ui'CriBinial Case No. 84/04 whereby acquittiiig ttie respondent for the eJleged ofiences u/s456&354ofI.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are tlxat on 12/2/04 a written coraplaint was niade by the prosecutrix (P.W,/ 1) aUegiag ia it tliat oxi 11/2/04 at about 9:00 p.m. respondent entered her house and had asked for wat.er it is apeged. tliat in.stead of.takiixg fee wa.t.er he caught hold her hand aad showed his mtention to have sexiial favour whereupon she raised alarm as a result ofwhich tlie oth.er family zaembers woke up ajid at that tisne her husband caine from outside aiid tiie respondent/accused was caught, Based on tlxis written report F.I.R. (Ex.P/2) was registered again.st tlie resj^ondent oa 12/2/04itself ;- 3, So as to held fhe accused/rcspondent guilty, the prosecyiitiDti, has examiaed eight wituesses. Stateinent ^ of the accused/respondent was also rccorded under Section 313 of tlie Cr.P.C. ia which he denied the charges levelled agamst him aad pleaded his ianoceBce and false unplication in fhe case. ^ 4, After heariag couusel for the parties/ fhe Court below has acqiiitted the accused/respondent for fhe offence as raentioned above 5. Contention of fhe counsel for the appellant states is that despite the fact that enough evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, fhe court below has erred in law in acquitting the respondents He subniits tib.at aU the witnesses have categorically deposed against fhe respondent but yet in an legal raaaner he has been acquitted. 6. On fhe other haad supporfcmg the iinpugned judgraent it has been argued by Shri Dubey, ffaat fhe stateraent of the witnesses are fuU of contradictions aiid oinissions and fhey ai'e not consistent. He subraits that fhe view taken by ftie court below is one of ttie possible view and tiierefore rai au acquittal appealy this coiut may not interfere unless fhe court comes to a couclusion that the liiidrrig arrived at by the court below is totally per^erse. 7. I have heard counsel for fhe parties and perased the judgnient inipiigned as weU as the niaterial available on record. Prosecutrix (P.W, 1) has stated that on the date of io.cident fhe accused/respondent has asked for water axid when tiie saxae was given to hiia^ iastead oftaking the same, he caught hold ofher haad aiid stated fhat he witl do "bad work" and by ttiat tioie her husband caaie frora outside and after seeing him accused hid hioisetfni her house. She has furtlier stated that her husband was havnig torch in haad aad with the help of fhe Mght of torch respondent/ accused was caught, In cross-examiaation this witnesses has stated that fhe accused/respondent was known to her faaiily and quite frequently he used to visit their house. She has stated that apart from her, the other family members including her two brotlier-m-laws, one sister-ui-law, niofher-ia-law aad fatiier-in-law were also fhere io. fhe house. She has adniitted the fact fhat her version as stated ia fhe Court are not part of her case diosj stateiaent or that of FIR. 1 'y%i ^-J'/' ^ 8. Jeevaa Prasad (P.W.-2) husbaiid of the prosecutrix has stated fhat he saw the accused/respohdent holdiiig th.e hand ofhis wifc and after ^eeing hini, hid Iiunself but with th.e help ofUght of iorcli lie caught him. In cross-examiaation he has stated fhat fhere was darkness aad he could not see the accused/respondent holding tlie haad of his wife aod even the fact ofhidrag offtie accused/respondentwas not disclosed by htm. Frora the stateraent of the Narayaii Prasad (P.W.3) it also appears that there was some previous dispute befcveen fhe two families. After due appreciation, fhe Court below has arrived to a conclusiou of acquittiag fhe accused persons. 11. Thus, atter heanng counsel for the parties aad considermg the inaterial available on record as weU as fhe elaborate judginent impugned passed by fhe Court below and bemg very much conscious of th.e existiiig legal position that in aa appeal agaixist acquittal iftwo views are possible on fh.e basis ofthe evidence led by fhe prosecution aad the trial Court takmg one view favoured fhe accused, reversion of tlie findings of acquittal by the appeUate Court takmg fhe ofher possible view iato consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquittmg the accused/respondents ofthe offence under Sections 456 & 354 of the Indiaii Penal Code, is jzist and proper aad does not warraat aay iaterference by this Court. Accordmgly, the appeal falls aiid is dismissed a.s such. SdJ- Pritinker Diwaker Judge