"^'^- "£-' MCRcno.w^ tIMINAL APPEAL N0. Applieant/Applllant OF 2001 jfr^L^ ^j.^y State ofChhattisforh VERSUS Respondent ^ •a 1. Roshanlal Sahu S/o Nandlal Sahu Aged about 55 years. 2. Preetamdas S/o Manrakhan Saliu Aged about 42 years •^ cey^r'/r^ <v G/^x/^/. '^yy .^yy// ^^%^^ ^•'^N^ t^* ^' (AII residents ot wllage Pendri, P.S., Doagargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon(C.G.) ^''^~'/ ._^:^1__^ _.___.-_-___.—_-.-„ ^^.^/' ^ APPLKMTION TOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL ^'/' ' UNDER SECTION 378(3) AND MEMO OF APPEAL y UNDERSECTION378n)OFTHECODEOFCRIMILAL PROCEDURE 1973. ^\ 'z'[»W ^ \\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. Aca.A.No.71oT2011 APPLICANT StateofChhatUsgarh. Versus RESPONDENTS RoshanlatSahuandanother. Shri Q. Aziz, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri Kunal Das, counsel forthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (15TO7/20111 This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the prosecution challengina the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh acquitting the respondents from the charges under Seetion 379 of I.P.C. and under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Fisheries Act, ^948- ^ . ' ' ' ''. • (2) Accoftling to the prosecution the respondents committed theft of fishesvaluedat Rs. 1900/- from the Government tank of village Kasari. Itis said that during the period 1£?h June to 16'^ August Ihere is prohibitjon for fishing activity under ttie provisions of Chhattisgarh Fisheries Act, 1948 and yet the accused persons committed the fishing activity. The report was lodged by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Kasari. (3) In course of trial the prosecution examined PW-1 Braj, PW-Balak Das Sahu, PW-3 Gorakhdas, PW-4 Dikeshwari Sahu, PW-5 Jnvrakhan, PW-6 Sukwaro Bai, RW-7 Harprasad, PW-8 Ramkumar Singh, PW-9 Kishan Bai, R(V-10 Vivekdas, PW-11 Shashibhushan and R/V-12 Daljeet Singh. According to PW-4 Dikeshwari Sahu who has lodged the .HR and PW-3 Gorakh Das as well as PW-5 Jiwakhan the accused persons were involved in'fishing activity for three days on 23"lr24u' and 25"' of June, 1998. The fishing activity was carried out by putting nets in the pond. (4) The trial Court has disbelieved statemerrt of Jiwakhan on the ground ]that he has not seen the accused person being invoh/ed of ffehing acth/ity. rsimilarly statements of other witnesses have been disbelieved on the ground -a,. n ^... ' ^ that prior to the lodging ofthe report there was panchayat meeting wherein it was decided that the tank would be renovated/reconstructed, however on account of fractional dispute and enmity the report appeare to have been lodged. (5) The frial Court has also found that neither fishes nor the flsh nets nor the amount has been seized from the accused persons. Amount of Rs.STO/- seized from Hanuman vide Ex.P/1 has not been found to be the amount which the accused might have earned by selling fishes. Similarly PW-8 Ram Kumar Singh has denied that ttre amount of Rs.800/- seized from him belongs to the accused persons. (6) The entire judgment and the flndingsrecorded therein are based on appreciation of evidence. The incident has taken place in the year 1998 and the value offlsh is only Rs.1900/-. (7) In the matter of Rukla Begum and others vs State of Kamataka reported in 2011 (4) SCC 779 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court, should not disturb the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court on the ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative wew and convicted the appellant. It has been held thereln that where two views of evidence are reasonably possible and trial Court has taken a view favouring acquittal, the High Court should noiinterfere. (8) In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference in this appeal against acquittal, consequently the appeal Tails and is herebydismissed. _ Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge ^