← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/174/2021rejected

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Shailendra Pratap Singh

2021-02-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 174 of 2021 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Charama, DistrictNorth Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Shailendra Pratap Singh S/o Santosh Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village/post- Amarpur, P.S. Indwar, District- Umariya, Madhya Predesh., District : Umaria, Madhya Pradesh

2. Ajit Singh S/o Indrapal Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o VillageKotri, P.S.- Indwar, District- Umariya, Madhya Pradesh., District : Umaria, Madhya Pradesh ---- Respondent For the Petitioner/State :- Mr. K..K. Singh, GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor, Order on Board by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. 22.02.2021 Heard on prayer for condonation of delay as well as grant of leave to appeal.

2.

Even if we are inclined to condone the delay the finding recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference because the learned trial has taken into consideration that the independent prosecution witnesses of seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution. Not only that, the witness of weighment has also not supported the prosecution case. The learned trial Court in a detailed scrutiny of the evidence on record has also found that the prosecution evidence lacks confidence and credibility in so far as weighment, drawal of sample, safe keeping in Malkhana, removal of the same from Malkhana and

there existing serious discrepancies with regard to the sample sent to the FSL and other irregularities. Taken together, in the backdrop of independent witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution, the view taken by the learned trial Court does not suffers from any patent illegality or perversity so as to call for interference by this Court, given limited scope of interference against the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, there is no merit in this case.

3.

Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected.

Sd/- Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor) Judge Judge Ajay