^?^^^^Kf^^S ^^^^^^^1 BMKSBIKB' ^'"' ^C\ / /D HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR, J. Applicant Appellant Respondents M.Cr.C. (PR) No. 3493 of 2005 State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) VER^US 1. Gautam Sahu, S/o Ghasiya Sahu aged about 33 years. 2. Gautam Sahu, S/o Ghasiya Sahu aged about 39 years. Both R/o Village : Peepar Bhona, P.S. Sarseewa, District Raipur (C.G.) Application for arant of leave to appeal U/S 37813) and memo of appea) u/s 378 (1) of Code ofCnmjnaLProceduj'e 1973 Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (12th July, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer points out that in the petition flled under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., name of respondent No.1 Gautam Sahu has been repeated as respondent No.2 also in place of Narayan Prasad Sahu, who was accused No.3 before the trial Court and was acquitted. 2) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu. 3) Police Sarseewa, District Raipur, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of one Pyarelal charge-sheeted as many as three accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar Sahu, Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on the accusation of their having hatched a conspiracy for commission of murder of deceased Dhoodnath @ Guddu Sahu who was murdered by them on 25-05-2004. 4) The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 302 read with Section 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution held that the prosecution evidence though established the above offences against accused Ashok Kumar Sahu, the prosecution evidence fell short of establishing the above charges against accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu. The trial Court, therefore, while convicting accused Ashok Kumar Sahu vide impugned judgment dated 07.07.2005, acquitted accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu of all the charges. :E;^3StS-^'SS^;^?EL£ ^l^^^^iS 6) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution evidence fell short of establishing the above charges against accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu. 7) The medical evidence in the present case was to the effect that deceased Dhoodnath @ Guddu Sahu died on account of consumption of acidic alcohol. The prosecution case is that accused Ashok Kumar Sahu made the deceased to consume acid on the pretext of it being liquor. Though the prosecution alieged that acquitted accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu conspired with accused Ashok Kumar Sahu for the commission of murder of deceased Dhoodnath Guddu Sahu, no cogent and reliable evidence was led by the prosecution to establish the fact of conspiracy. The lone circumstance relied upon by the prosecution in that behalf was that all the three accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Sahu, Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu consumed liquor together on the date of the incident. The above circumstance, even if is held to be proved, in our opinion, is not sufficient by itself to hold the acquitted accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu guilty on the capital charge of murder. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we 4 ^l are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 9) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufGcient ground to warrant interference in an appeal againsl; acquittal. 10) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused persons Gautam Sahu and Narayan Prasad Sahu. 11) The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice R.JV. Sd/- Q subbu Judge ^^^^^MBRaBSAsa.sfam'