C A V Order

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District-Janjgir (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 976/2000 by which respondent herein has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Awadh Ram Sahu gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir Exhibit-P/1 regarding the incident that the police of police station Shivrinarayan was not lodging the report against the respondent. Thereafter, the police of Janjgir lodged FIR Exhibit-P/2. As per complainant Awadh Ram Sahu, respondent Shiv Kumar cheated him and obtained Rs. 50,000/- in the name of a treasure hunt. After completion of the investigation charge was framed under Section

420 of IPC against the respondent.

3. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the beyond reasonable doubt and by the impugned order dated 31.03.2004, acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid charge. Hence, this appeal.

5. The learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law facts and circumstances of the case and thus liable to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be convicted and sentenced to the full term provided. He next submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in the case from a true and correct perspective. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution has proved its story beyond all reasonable doubt. All the prosecution witnesses stated against the respondent but the trial Court on minor contradictions and omissions disbelieved the statement of the witnesses. The learned trial Court while passing judgment overlooked the material produced by the prosecution and wrongly acquitted the respondent/

accused person. Hence, this appeal may be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution witnesses utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

8. Learned trial Court found that Shiv Kumar (PW-7) stated that Hemlal and his wife mortgaged their field in Rs. 8,000/- and stated about the execution of Exhibit-P/4. Exhibit-P/4 is a receipt which read as under:-

jlhn eu ds eSa gseyky cYn eksrhyky lkgw lk- /kjnsbZ Fkkuk f’kojhukjk;.k rglhy ikex<+ ftyk tkatxhj (pkEik) dk gwaA tk fd eSa ?kj [kpZ vk tkus ds dkj.k vius [kqn dk [ksr vB~Bkjg dkBk dk fxjoh j[k dj 8000 (vkB gtkj :i;k f’kodqekj cYn ckcw yky iVsy lk- /kjnsbZ Fkkuk f’kojhukjk;.k rglhy ikex<+ ftyk tkatxhj (pkEik) okys ds ikl fy;k gwaA ftldk C;kt ds :i esa [ksr dh cksokbZ djsxkA ftldk jde iVkus dk djkj Qkxqu iwf.kZek gSA chl :i;s dh LvkEi ij jlhn fy[kh xbZ gSA ljdkj is lun jgs oDr t:jh ij dke vkos ,oa jde pkj xokgksa dh lkeus nh xbZ gSA Learned trial Court also found that the statements of the complainant and his brother Makhan (PW-4) are contradictory to each other and acquitted the beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muralidhar @ Gidda & Another vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730, has held that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal, even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record, keeping in view the settled legal position regarding