HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App. No. 829/2001 SB: Han’ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar ‘ ‘ State of Chhattisgarh APPELLANT Versus RESPGNDENTS Laxm] ' Prasad z ¢ JUDGM.ENT Post for judgment on \°\.03.20 10 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwa-r Judge M G! APPELLANT Stata of Chhattisgarh HIGH COURT OF GEE-IATTISGARH AT EILA3?UR Cr. Am). No. 82912001 SB: Hon’bie Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwax Vexsus Laxmi Prasad aged about 45 years;, Sfs Maairam Qccupatiml V- cultivatien, re$idem of Vii‘iage PoncH, RS. Paii, Distirict Km‘ba. ‘ ALWLECATlQk? F3R GWT £3}? LEAVE T3 éEPE’EAL EI‘EtiEER ~ $ECTIQN 37$ g3? AND MEMG QF APEPAL UNDER SECTEOE 3‘?8 i1“; GF TEE QQEE GF‘ €EMIE§3L PRQiZEEiiRE, is??? Appeaxange: $hri Ammd Shukia, Panel Lam-“var for {ha Siam] appalani. Smt Asha Pandsy. comma} for thE raglaoncimit. a? E} B G m E K? T {Deliwsrad 0111103. 20 10} l. Tim. Siam] appsilzmt has prsféfred this appeai agains‘t the ordsr 9f acqui’nal datcd 06.09.2000, passed if; criminal caS€ No. 3897;” 97 by 1115 Judicial Magimrate First Class, Katghora whereby, me ismmd Magis’fiaie has acquitted tbs rsspondent of the charge under Sections 182 anti 21 1 of the IPC. 2 Case of the prosecuticn m brief 11S that the accusedjrespondent has lodged a complaint 21.7.1990 with the Police Station Pali that Tulsi Bai emci Murii Manoher Shanna have broken the lock of his house and committed theft by taking 6 bags of padéty. " Tutsi Bai and Murli Manohar a1: the i‘eiatives of accusedhespondent. On this repoxt, oii‘ence under Section 454 as. and 380 was registered and investigation started. After ‘ Q ( invéstigation, it was fotmd that th€ report was faIS€ and Khariji was gsnt to ths Court. For lodging ialse report Istagasa was filed agains‘t the respondent un‘der Sections '182 and 211 of the IPC. o After completion of the mvestigation, Istagasa was tiled before the Court ofJ.M.F.C. Katghora, who conducted the tn'al and framed charges against the respondent under Sections 182 and ' 2111 of the IPC. The charges we're read over and explained to the accusedi respondent, who abjured the guilt and stated that he has been faisely implicated in the case. u 4. After affording of opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned J.M,F.C. has acquitted the respondent of the Charge under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC. Against this judgment, the State has tiled this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State argued that despite there was ample evidence available on record, including the evidence oi: the complainant to convict the accused/respondent for the oifence under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC, the learned lower court has ignored the statements of the witnesses and acquitted the respondent of the charge as above. 6. 0n the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of acquittal of the respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgmentimpugned and record of the lower court. V«. Q.) 8. The accused/respondent has admitted this fact in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, \ l ‘1973 that he has lodged 0116 report in “£116 Policg Station about ‘th:3ft in his houss. He has also admitted that lock of his 1101156 was broken. The accused,’ respondent has lodged report against ‘DhanjramWW-Eu) arid Tulsi Bai (PW-3) for theft. 19. Dhamram (PW—5) arid Murli Manohar (PW~4) have stated {hat Police has not seized any paddy from their house. Komal ‘Praad Mishra (PW—6) has stated that he searched the house of Dhaniram, but nothing was found there. ' After completion of ‘hhvfestigation, it was found that Laxmi Prasad has lodged the false report against 'I‘ulsi Bai and Dhaniram. EThe report is Ex. P/4. ~Th1$, it is Clear from the above evidence that respondent Laxmi ‘Prasad has lodged the report EXP/4 against Tulsi Bai and _. Dhaniram for theft. 10. After perusal of the Report EX. P,’4 shows that house of Laxmi Prasad was broken and some paddy was lying scattered from his house to the house ofTulsi Bai and Dhanimm and on this ground, he suspected that they have committed the theft and therefore, he lodged'the report against them. This fact is proved bV the evidence of Chandrashekhar (PW— 1), Mangluram (PW—2) and Dhaniram (PW—5) has also admitted that paddy was scattered from courtyard of the respondent to the courtyard of his house. They have comeborated the report of the respondent that the paddy was lying scattered from his house to the house of Tulsi Bai and Dhaniram. In this way, those Witnesses supported the report F.I.R. EX.P,’4. In this condition any person can lodge the report on such doubt. The above circumstances show that house of the respondent was broken and the paddy was sprayed from the house of respondent to the house of Dhaniram. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had lodged the false report, x ? 11. If 011 the baSis of doubt {my report has been lodged against any body and if stolon propoxty was not seized, from the house of that person, it can not be said that the repoxt was false. Thus, it can not be said ’that a false report was lodged by the accused/respondent. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. l 112. Having thus considered. the above evidence, l am of the View that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasgnable doubt, Therefore, the learned lower court has righdy t acquitted the respondent of the charge under Sections 182 and 21 l cathe IPC. ‘ u 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, I am of the View that in an appeal against the acquittal if two views on the prosecution evidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one view favourable to the accused persons, then it will not be permissible for the appellate Court to reverse the finding 0f acquittal by taking the other possible View on the prosecution evidence. Thus, the judgment of the learned lower Court is not perverse or illegal. y 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant! State against the acquittal of respondent/accused person is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge