^ 1 ft-r^ f^ ^S61/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal MiscellaneousPetLtion Np.916of 2010 APPELLANT: Naresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Dukalha Ram Sahu, 35 years, R/o Village Narayanpur, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Shankerlal S/oGobindprasad Banjara,24 yrs, 2. Nandkumar Banjara, S/o Gobindprasad Banjara,35yrs, 3. Rajkumar Banjara, S/o Gobindprasad Banjara, 25 yrs, 4. Hemantkumar Banjara, S/o Gobindprasad Banjara, 46 yrs, 5. ' Harikrishna @ Gudda, S/o Gobindprasad Banjara, 36 yrs, 6. Rajendra Kumar @ Rajju, S/o Gobindprasad Banjara,43yrs, 7. Gobindprasad S/o l-1eeralal Banjara, 66 years, All R/o Narayanpur, Outpost Fasterpur, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 8. State pf Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under proviso appended to Section 372 read with Section 378 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code} Present: No.8. Mr. Prafull Bharat, counsel for the appeliant. Mr. Sanjeev KumarAgrawal,Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent Division Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble Mr.R.L. Jhanwar. JJ ORALJUDGMENT (7-2-2011) 1. Heard. 09 2. I.A.No.1 fortaking documentson record is altowed. Documents betaken\' on record. . 3. This case has been registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.916/2010 as application forgrant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acqujttal. In the light of amendment in Section 372 of the CrPC by adding proviso, the victim is entitled to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Therefore,Registry is directed to register this case as 'acquittal appeal'. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. By this appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, the appellant, who is son of deceased Dukalha Sahu, has filed appeal against the judgmentof acquittal dated 10-8-2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.48/2009,whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted respondentsNo.1 tp 7 herein ofthe charge Section 302 read with Section34ofthe IPC. 6. We have perused thejudgment impugned, record of the trial Court and copiesofthe documentsfiled on behalfofthe appellant. 7. As per case of the prosecution, Punit (PW-4) has deposed in his evidence that he has seen the incident and before him respondents No.1 to 7 herein have committed murder of Dukalha, thereafter, he haslodged report. Except Punit (PW-4), other witnesses have not supported case of the prosecution relating to commission of offence by respondents No.1 to 7. After discussing the evidence of Punit (PW-4), in the light of merg Ex.P-14 & FIR Ex.P-19 lodged by Punit (PW-4), the trial Court has acquittedrespondentsNo.1 to7. 8. As per evidence of Punit(PW-4), he was present at thetime of incident and he has seen the incident, but as per merg Ex.P-14 & FIR Ex.P-19, he has not seen theincident, when he heard weeping sound ofhis sister- in-law (Bhabhi), he reached to the house of Dukalha whereinjured body of Dukalha was lying on cot, at that time Dukalha was alive and he was informed that Harikrishna @ Gudda has seen the incident and one Shankar has assaulted the deceased. The prosecution has made Harikrishna @ Gudda as accused. Virtually, on the basis of complete contradictory evidence of Punit (PW-4), no definite conclusion was ^^^^ /^ y & i t,te%® ^ Soma ^ possible relating to commission of offence by respondents No.1 to 7. In these circumstances, no option was left to the trial Court except to acquit respondents No.1 to 7 of the chargealleged against them. This is case ofvirtually no evidence. We do notfindany case worth admjssion. 9. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. IO.I.A.No.2 standsdisposed of. ^_ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge