1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 582 of 2022
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District
Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Shivlal, S/o Bodhiram Yadav, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bade
Gobra, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
2. Harishchand, S/o Mangturam Verma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Gopalpur, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
For Appellant: Shri Saumya Rai, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge & Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge Order on Board 06/04/2022 Per Rajani Dubey, Judge
1. Heard on prayer for grant of leave to appeal. Learned State counsel would argue that even though prosecution led reliable evidence and Investigating Officer (I.O.) has proved its case before the trial court but the learned trial court acquitted the respondents.
2. The appellant/State intends to prefer the instant appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 35/2018, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted from the charge under Section 25, (1) (1-B) (A) of Arms Act and Section 4, 5 of Explosive Act.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.01.2015, on the basis of secret information, Station House Officer searched and seized various articles of arms and explosives from the conscious possession of both 2 the accused, and thereafter crime has been registered against the accused at Police Station- Mainpur.
4. Prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them.
5. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
6. After going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, we find that all independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case before trial court, even Police officer also did not support the memorandum and seizure and Investigating Officer admitted many suggestions of the defence which indicate that he had not prepared various documents carefully.
7. Therefore, in these circumstances, learned trial court was left with no option but to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt. In our opinion the view taken by the trial court is quite possible and plausible.
8. Given the limited scope of interference against judgment of acquittal, we do not consider present to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
9. Accordingly, application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Ruchi