State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station, Pamgarh, Distt.: Janjgir, {Chhattisgarh} APPLICANT APPELLANT Versus . Thakdr Das, S/o Jeevandas, aged about 22 years, 2, Jeevan Das, Slo Tulsidas, _ aged about 55 years, . Korbharin, Wlo Jeevan Das, aged about 50 years, Above ‘all Rlo Poiice Line, Bilaspur, Disttx. Bilaspur, {Chhattisgarh} ’ RESPONDENT ACCUSED. APPLIC ION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 3 AND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378/ 1 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973. M” W7] f, HIGH CGURT GF CHHATTISéARH AT BILAS?UR Singie Bemh i How‘bie Mr: 3'us?§cg Prifinker Dim/aka? CnM‘P. No.544 of 2009 APPLICANT 5mm of Chha‘i‘fisggrh Versus RESPONDENTS I Thaikur' Dag é’a whems‘ Accused Shri Vaibhav A. écyerd‘mn, P L for f‘na Sfgm/ag‘piican‘r. APPLICATION FGR GRANT OF LEAV§ TO APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 378$} OF THE CGDE Ci? CRE€V\ENAL PRQ§§DUE§E 33E O R D E § {20.11.2§G§§ Heard Qn admixiun Present pawmn és iiirac‘rerj against ?he impugnad judgment dafed 10.5.2GO4 passed by Chief Jud§ciai Magisfrm‘e, Jcnjgir in Crimina! Case No. 10G3/2002 wharaby acqui?f§ng fine ress‘pandenfs of The alleged offence punishabie under SecTion 498—A/34 of Th5 Indian Pena! Cade‘ Z, Case of The. presgcu’rien, in brief, is “rim? written repar’r ‘ dated 22.1.2092 (ExPll) was iodged by campiaimn’r Ramabaé Manikpuri (PW-1) digging m if we? respandan’r Ne, 1 — Thakur Das §s he!" husband, rgspendam Na. 2 Jgavan Dzzs is her fa’rher-in—law and respcnden’f NG.3- Kerbhar‘in is hzz" ma’rher—in-iaw. IT §s waged in The camplczinfr Tha’r hgr‘ marriage: was wigmnizgd wh‘h The respcndem‘ No. l on 23,4.ZQOG and immedig’reiy af’fer' i‘he N.“.4 { marriage $he was subjected Te cruelfy by The ‘ 1 respondenfs/accusee. On The basis 9f fhis regem‘, FER (Ex—FAA) I; was regis‘mred by ‘fhe Pciice on 22,1,2002. 3; Counsel far The agpiécanwsmm bubmh‘s Thu? The caum‘ below has cemmiffed a sarhus error 3r) cumming acqui‘rm! To The respcndems/accused daspife fhara bemg sufficiam‘ materia! avaiiable 0y: regard caliing far ”mail" canvicfion 4. In suppar’r of its case, Tha pmsecufim M5 examined a5: many a3 5 wii'nesses. Sm’ramem’s cf irhz respandenw/accused were also recar‘dad under Sgm‘ian 313 of me Cade of Criminal Pmcgdure in which fhzy haw dgnied thg charges leveled against them and piggdgd ThgEr inmcgncg Qné fgjsg implication in The CG56. 5, l hgve hgard {mungai far Thg gggr‘tie5 grid perusgd The maigr-iai availabég 9n rgcordi 6. In her smiemgn’r, ihg wmpiainani Ramabai Manikpuri (PW-1) has smied mm afier her marriaga shg iivad in her ma’rrimenia! hcuzze fcir aboufr (mg year and ‘iherem‘ier her husband starred beatii’ig her in presence of respandenfrs Ne. 2 (E 3 in her mm‘rimonial hcuse. ET is giieged The? when she was being beaten by her husband, Qiher eeeused persens Lised ire be spee‘ie‘i‘crs, l? is further alleged the? when semeene frem her perenfs' house used ’ro visii her, They ere eieo beeien by The reepondeni Ne. 2 Jeeven Des. Iii is eeid ‘rhet her huebehd used m bee? her at The instance of aceused Jeeven Desi Further in “(he cross— exeminaiion, she hes smied The? eT The eve of ‘Reklu" fesTivei she ‘r r—i/ had delivered e female ehild in her parents heuse and OT ThciT: \ x ' Time iT is her husbend wha drgpped her in The heuse end QT Thcn‘ V Time Their relaTions were cordial. She has furTher sTeTecl TheT i afTer Two monThs of her deiivery, when she had gone To her moTrimoniol house, she sTarTed living wiTh her husband separoTely. She has furTher sTaTed ThaT her faTher-in—low is working in The Poiice Depcr’rmgm whereas her- ma’rhgr-in-lgw i5 iiving separqfgiy, She has also admih‘ed thaf when she had lodged fhe report, during tha’r peried hgr' husband never used “r0 “manure her and she ha$ never disciased The fact cf commission af cruelty on her before any person. MaheTTardas Manikpuri (WI-2), faTher of The camplginam, has cm‘eggriecxlly admitted The feet That at The time of marriage fhere was no demand of dowry and even at ihe Time of her delivery, fhere was no demand, 7x From The record it appears Thai gs per The ease of The prosecu‘iicn, The compiainan’r was ousted from The house by ihe accused persons on 27.11.2001 whereas repor’r was iodged on 22.1.2002, This delay has noT been explained by The prosecuTion as per requiremenT of The law. ThaT aparT, no independenT wiTness has been examined by The prosecu’rion. All These aspec‘is have been duly considered by The courT below while passing The impugned judgmenT of acquiTTal. 8. AfTer hearing counsel for The applicanT and going Through The evidence avaiiable on record and being very much conscious of The exisTing legal posiTion ThaT in a case againsT acquiTTal if Two views are possible on The basis of The evidence led by The prosecuTion and The Trial CourT Taking one View favourable To The accused, reyersion of The findings of acquiTTal by The appellaTe €ourT Taking The oTher possible view inTo consideraTion, is noT permissible in law, This CourT is of The view ThaT The judgment? impugned acquiTTing The respondenTs/ accused of The offencel \ punishable under SecTion 498—A/34 of The Indian ?enal Code, is diusT and proper and does noT call for any inTerference by This CourT. “r 9. In View 9f fhe abave fggtua! and legqi pgsiticn, I d0 n0? find any reasen To infem‘er'ence. with. the order impugned. 10. The pefh‘ion fails and is accordingiy dismi$ge&//,/.//’ / Sa!’ .‘waker D/ PH“ . -“kerD S“dge , /«~