'Si^ T- ^,Ti: ^IIINg fi%® • ^l I^^B^B^^^BB^^^^^^^B^KSJIiiiiliilliilSiiilii^ ^l »1 a ^^^;7 ms •^^y^' ili '^;^i^^l;^^<^^^^^^^^'.^--'^^^;:^''^;,^%-^^^^ 'SiS^^^^^S^^^SSi^SSiSsiiiSiiiiS iKSIil8Siiil81 S8Sli8aXI%l^^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR Ssngie Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritjnker Dwoker Cnmjnal AQpeGJ No. 1182 of 1992 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Accusied State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhort-tisgQrh) Versus NondiQ.1, gon of Ram Krishna GhGudhari and others Shri Akhi! Mishtra, Deputy ^ovt. Advocate for the State/ap|%;llant. None for the respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECT20N 378 (1) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PRGCEDURE. JUD6EMENT (.06.05.2010) The present appea! orises out of the judgment ond order .dated 23.3.1992 passed by Judjcid Magistrate, First Class, Durg in Crimina! Case No. 1185/1991 acquitting the respondents/accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 324/34 of the Indian Pena! Code. 2. 'Brief facts of the 'case are that .morriage of the complcijnwit Pushpiata Choudhari (PW-1) was soiemnized with the accused/GppeijGnt No. 5 Norendra Kumar on 4.5.1984 Gnd;lit is Qlleged that from the beginning she was subjected to cruelty by the accused/persons for brining less dowry- On 257.1984 written report (Ex.P-4) WGS iodged by O.P. Chaudhar/ (PW-4), father of the compidnant dieging in it thGt her daughter was subjected to cruejty by the accused persons. After investigation, chcjian was fiied by the poiice on 15.10.1984 against the fiye accused persons namely Nondlal, Indrabai Yogesh Kumar, Narendra Kumosr c.nd Mahesh Kumar. F" f^ro'€ "''^^1 ^%^/' /^k & w- •^- B- 3. In support of its coee, the prosecution has exo.mined as mony as 9 witnesses. Stflri-ements of the respondents/accused were also reeorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure in which they denied the charges levdied against them and pieaded thelr innocenee and faise impSication in the case. 4. By thejudgment impugned the court belowhas acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences as nnentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. During pendency of the present appeal, accused/respondents No.1 and 2 have expired and, therefore, present appea! confines only in respect of respondents No. 3,4 and 5. 6. Counse! for the-State/appejlont submits that on the basis of evldence as adduced by the prosecution, the court below ought to haye conyicted the accused/respondent. He submits thot there is enough niaterial avaiiabje on record warranting conviction of the respondents/accused. 7. I have heard counsel for the pcrties and perused the material avaljabieon record. 8. From the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, aijeged injuries sustained by complaincrit Pushplata (PW-1) has not been proyed by the prosecution. Though, Ramvishnu (PW-1), O.P. Chaudhary (PW-4), Daduram (PW-5), R.& Rao (PW-6), R.R.P. Pyasa (PW-7) and C.D. Verma (PW-8) have made cerl-aln diegotions against the accused per^ons but from the evidenc® of these witnesses, it is-o.pparent that they have exaggerQtgd -2^ i ^ii^ ^ < : V-- whi!e deposing their stQtements. Record further shows that there are material contradictions and omissions in their statements and it also appears that GS the complainant could not adjust in the Jojnt famiiy, she was keen to iive along with her husband seporately. 9. After due appreciation of the evidence avGilable on record, the Court- beiow has ar-rjved to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been abje to prove its case beyond a!l reasonable doubts, and therefor®the respondents are entitSed for acquittd. 10. After hearing counsei for the po.rj'les and QO'mQ through the eyidenee ayallable on record and being very much conscious of the existing legai position that in a case o.gainst acquitta! if two vlews are possibie on the basls of the evidence ied by the prosecution ond the trial Court- taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquitta! by the appeliafe Court toking the other possibie view into considerotjon, is not permissibie in law, this Court is of the view thot the Judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A cnd 324/34, is just and proper and does not cail for any interference bythis Cour!'. 11. For the reasons oforementioned, there Is no merit in the present case and the sam®is dismissed accordlngly. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge &/-