R.M.P. NO. ’ OF 20 I APPELLANT : Tanguram Son of Sahdev Sahu, COMPLAINANT aged about 7O years, Occupation RESPONDENTS 1. Tamradhwaj Son of Prabhuram ACCUSED PERSONS Sahu, aged about 35 years; 2. Jhumuklal Son of Halalkhor, aged about 65 years; 3. Tijuram Son of Ruraha Ram, aged about 60 years; 4. Bharat Son of Vishram, aged about 57 years; 5. Derha Ram Son of Mehattar Ram, aged about 60 years; 6. Radheshyam Son of Budharu Ram, aged about 49 years; 7. Mansharam Son of Sukhduram, aged about 7O years; 8. Tejram Son of Kriparam, aged about 49 years; 9. Khorbahra Son of Kriparam, aged about 56 years; yx C 09 Farmer, Village Bhothaii, Tahsil VB “o KQ®\%\\99 m 5m“::§: Q\.\¢1" Gurur, District Durg (C.G.). viewaéxa @Mvj VERSUS 10. Nandkumar Son of Namdas, aged about 40 years; 11. Ishwar Son of Parasram, aged about 42 yea rs; 12. Sukalu Son of Kartik Ram, aged about 43 years; 13. Dutta Rishi Son of Seva Ram, aged bout 38 years; 14. Hemlal Son of Chaitram, aged about 39 years; 15. Aas Kumar Son of Ghanshyam Singh, aged about 37 years; 16. Kanwal Singh Son of Budhram, aged about 55 years; 17. Nammu Ram Son of Budhdu Ram, aged about 66 years; 18. Samaru Ram' Son of Jhituram, aged about 35 years; 19. Manharan Son of Lal Das, aged about 52 years; 20. Goutam Son of Jouhrik Ram Sahu, aged about 56 years; 21. Amrit Lal Son of Gajpal, aged about 43 years; 22. Makhan Lal Son of Pachkaud Sahu, aged about 51 years; . T \A/ a 23. 24. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 378 (4) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR GRANT .OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL Ghurwa Son of Agrahij, aged about 53 years; Brijlal Son- of Ramadhar, aged about 55 years; AII are residents of Village Bhothali,’ Police Station Gurur, District Durg (C.G.). CRMJJVO. 67912009 APPIJCANT Tanguxam NON-APPLICANTs Tamradhwaj 8s Others (29.03.2010; Ream on admission, alleged that to promct the said land‘ he had put fencing amund the same and adjacent to the said land the villagem had decided _to construct a community hall and after laying the foundation stone, on 1.2.2003 fencing of the complainant was destmyed and burnt and some of the wood was stolen. F ‘ @% defence witnesses have also been examined by them in support of their case. 4. By the impugned judgment the Court below has acquitted the accused/respondents of the 0%nces as aforementioned. Hence the present petition. 5. Contention f the counsel r tm applicant i that the Court below has completely ignored the maten'l vailable on record. He submits that in categorical way the witnesses of the applicant have stated as to in what manner the oh‘ence has been committed by the accused/respondents. He submits that at least the onence under Section 294 of the IPC is made out agat the accused] respondents. 6. I have heani counsel for the applicant. Fm the record it is clear th the applican a admitted the fact that on account of darkness in the night he could not see the incident and he can not say a to who had done the said act. Kumaru P.W.—3) another wiess o the comp has admitted the fact that as number of politicians were attending the Bhoomi Poojan iction, the villagers have cleane the place. It also appeais h'om the record that son of the compl was in nauthorized possession of the land in question and some order was passed by the Tahsildar for removing the said encroachment. From the evidence it also comes that there was some previous enmity between Nand Kumar, complainant and son of the complainant for which onence under Section 307 of the IPC has been registered against the son of the complainant. The entile material has been considered by the Court below while acquitting the accused/respondents and has arrived to a ‘ particular conclusion of acquitting the respondent. I 6. I nnd no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal particularly the view taken by the court below which is one of the possible View. It is a settled position of ' o fo s a a a ins m at t hs s ( tn f lainant im d ainant u 1/ ‘ mu law 1n relauon to cases agamst acqmttal In a penuon agamst acqmttal 1f two Vlcws are poss1ble on the hams of the ev1dence led by the prosecutxon and the tnal Court taming one View favoured the accuSed, reversion of the hndings of acquittal by the appellatc Court taking the other possibb View into consideration is not permissible in law, this Court _ is of the vicw that the judgment impugned aoquitiing the respondents/accused of the omences as alleged is just and proper. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. f"”""” Sdl- " Pritinker Diwaker JudgeVv/vw WW/ 7