Mk v-v {3mm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘JIjDICATURE . AT BILASPUR .\ ' (J glyckwe ho. 5 34 20 ACOUITTAL APPEAL No. ;/ 06 ‘ r K , 378 APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM FOR GRANT OFaLEAVE OF APPEAL TO U APPEAL S 378 1 U OF A I I CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973. \ APPLICANT ’ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate, Janjgir—Chalf1pa (C.G.) ' NON-APPL r ~ . Gauri shanker, S/o x 1 ”Raghunath Prasad AgraWal, " 'Aged about ~ 45 years, £2 9 _ Pawan, ‘ S/o - Raghunath Prasad ’h a'§ r ' ‘ (lat/b/‘Wf " Agrawal, Aged about - 38 ‘ ’ ' k yegrs. I ””x Both are residents of' i Station Road, Naila, District — Janjgir—Champa (HomMr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker .Cr.M.P. No. 39 of 2007 State of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Gauri Shankar and another. Shri Ajeet Singh‘PL for the applicant/State. Shri Arun Kochar counset for the non applicants. (09 .1 1 .209) Heard on admission. Janjgir Champa, in Criminal Case udicial No. 26 Magistrate First Class, respondents/accused of he offenc u Indian Penal Code. 8/2005 acquitting the nder section 324/34 of the 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 25.4.2001 FIR (Ex.P~ was lodged by Babulal Agrawal (PW-1) alleging that on that d respondents had assaulted him with fist and club and had al struck his head against the wall and as a sustained number of injuries. 2) ay so result of which he had respondents/accused despite available on record calling for thei there [being sufficient material r conviction. 4. Prosecution has examined 04 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under .Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ) APPLICANT RESPONDENTS 0 t e @ the charges levelled against them and pleaded false implication in the case. 6. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that Babulal (PW—1) has stated in the FIR that for last four years, his sister was unable to walk but in his Court statement he has stated that when his sister was going inside the house, respondent Gaurishankar came running‘away and pushed her. Likewise, Anita Agrawal (PW-3) has stated that Ashal got down from the vehicle and when she made an attempt to take her son, respondent Gaurishankar pushed her. She has also stated that it is incorrect to say that Asha was not in a position to walk. Thus contradictory statements have been given by the witnesses with respect to thes physical condition of Asha. From the statementyof Payal (PW-2), daughter of accused Pawan, it appears that there was some dispute I between the two families. This witness has made certain allegation against respondent Gaurishankar but she has not stated anything against respondent Pawan. Though Babulal (PW—1) has stated that respondent Gaurishankar has caused the injury and abused him, his statement is not fully supported by Anita (PW-3). Admittedly, the Court statement of the complainant appears to be exaggerated because number of allegations made in the FIR do not tally with the statements of the witnesses. Moreover, the doctor who examined the complainant regarding injury has not been examined by the prosecution. The Court below has rightly held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses and the FIR. 7. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view r g 3_ favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittai by the appeiiate Court taking the other possible View into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquittlng the respondents/accused of the offences under section 324/34 of the lndian Penal Code. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. ii sw- Pritinker Diwaker Judge