Singte Bench IN THB Hicaiia3nBR'ioy]F a'cBtCAtfulEtE AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0. t^ /2009 ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. /2009 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS .A-^? 2' ^-€^y^'..> <B^ ^> 'K^ ^^' JA The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS P. Narayan Rao, S/o.- Late P. Apparao, Aged about - 38 years, Occupation - Private Service P. La?ani, W/o.- Late P. Apparao, Aged about - 55 years Occupation - House Work P. Shankar Rao, S/o.- Late P. Apparao, Aged about - 35 years, Occupation - Private Service All are R/o.- Quarter No. 152/C, B.M.Y. Charoda, P.S. G.R.P. Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OP LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S378 (3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 |l) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. •1<% ^iS^S% j ^,,-JS .^, /s^& ('^^ Ifflllf HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR le Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pr-ftinksr &iwsker Cr.M.P. APPELLANT The State of Chhottisgarh Ver-sus RESPON&ENTS P. NarayGn Rao & others. Shri Praveen &as, Deputy Govsrnment Advocate for the State/apoeliant. APPLJCATION FOR 6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIttINflL PROCEDURE. l-1eard on o.dmisslon. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment da+ed 09.09.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sesfiions Triat Mo. 170/2008 acquitting the respondents No. 2 and 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the co.se of the prosecution on th-e basis of merg intimation (Ex.P-13) dated 27.1.2006 and also on the basis of written report (Ex.P-10) dated 4.2.2006, First Information Report (Ex.P-12) dated 5.2.2006 was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishabls under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penol Code. It is alleged that the marriage of deceased P. Surabhi Rao was soiemnized with accused P. Narayan Rao in the year 1997 ond as the deceased was il! treated by the accused person-s, she committed suicide by consuming poison on 27.1.2006 in her own house. ".<-; // 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined o.s many as 9 witnesses. Stotements of the respondents/accused were also recorded undsr Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied th.e "charges leveled against them and pteaded innocence snd false imp!ication in the case. This apart, one witness ncmely Shri Niwas Rao (DW-1) has aiso been examsned by t.he defence in support of it-s case. 4. By the judgment impugnsd the court below has convicted the accused/respondent No. 1 P. Naraya" Rao fo" th.e offences punishable under Sections 498-.A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, however, acquitted the respondents No. 2 <& 3 namely P. Laxmi cmd P. Shonker Rao for the same offences. Hence the present petition. 5. Contention of the counsei for the applicant/State is that when on the bos',s of so.me set of evidence ths court be!ow has convicted the accused/appeliant P. Naraya^ Rao, the. court below should have also convicted the respondents No. 2 and 3. He submits that there is sufficient ev'dence available on record warranting conviction of the respondents No. and 3. According to th.e State counsel findings recorded by the court below is perverse so far as it rslates to the respondents No. 2 ond 3 are concerned. 6. I have hecrd counsel for the State/applicant and perused the materia! availGble on rscord. 7. From ths gyidence th.e undi-sputed facts are that deceased P. Surbhi Ro.o, wife of the accused No.l P. Narayan '"/?. ^l / .Q 's<;iif!y ''^^^Ei'E^^'"1'' Rao was working in the Railway Deparf'ment and was resid'ng separately from the accused persons along with hsr two children since one <md half yeor prior to the dcte of Incident and divorce petition was aiso preferred by the deceased wh.jch was pending bsfore ths competent Court. 8. P. Abhishek Rao (PW-1) - son of the deceased, age.d about 12 years hos stated in his evidence that his mother has committed suicids by consuming poison and from ths beginning his father used to beat his mother by demanding money for the liquor. He h.as'furt-her stated th.at the othe" accussd persons used to abuse him, his mother and his younger brother. He has also stated that his fathsr cuid uncle also used to beat his mother and used to enquire about the routine of his mother. l-1e has also stated that few days just prior to the incident, he otong with his brother and mother had gone to tb.® house of the accused persons ond this was done pursuant to the order of the Family Court where this witness and his brother were permitted to visit ths house of accused persons. He has stated that fit about 1.30 pm he" maternal uncte came to take them and in the evening at about 5 pm her mother also came, however, there was some dispute between his mother and father cind when his mother was insistinq to take this witness, her father hadaske-d the deceosed to go and die. He has further stated that his mother a!so used to give money to her parents cmd her broth-ers. He further states that his maternal uncle and maternal Qresndfathsr wsre ksen to ensure that the deceased may not liye with hsr husband. Ra"i AAanikpuri (PW-2) - servant of th.e deceased has stated in his evidence that about 10 dcys prior to the incident, there was some dispute between the deceased and her mother-ln-law. She has statsd that deceased has informed her that h.er husband used to bsat her after consuming liquor. She h.as not made any specific ojlegations against the respondents No, 2 and 3. Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-5) who runs the Dispensary in the vicinity where the deceased was residing, has stated that on th.e date of incident, deceosed had come to her and was vomiting and when he had asked the deceased as to what had happened she had not disclosed orsyt'hing to him. 9. P.V. Ramannamurt'y (PW-6) - col'eague of the deceased has stated in his evidence thst decsased has informed th.at h.er husband is not doing anyl-hing and consumes liquor ofld, thereafter, h.e has made general allegation that accused persons used to harass her. In his cross-examination he ha-s stoted that earlier aiso deceased has made an attempt to commit suicide by throwing herself before running train. He further admits that deceased was residing separately prior to one and half ysars of the incident. Saurabh Chand Manda! (PW-7) - brother of th.e deceased and the lodger of the written report has stated that as the marriage of the deceased with the accu-sed No. 1 was an intercaste morriage, her sister was subjected to horassment. He admits that the deceased was residing separately and her husbcmd used to beat her for some reason or the other. He hos not made ony specific aliegation against the respondents No. and 3. Gowr's Prasod (PW-8) - colleague of the deceased has also not made any specific allegations against the respondents No. and 3. M.L. Dahariya (PW-9)- Investigating Officer has ^•",-••'» '•'Tffiaci &/- supported the case of the prosecution. Shri Nivas ftao (DW-1) has categorically stated in his evidence that reiations between the deceased and respondents No. 2 ond 3 were very cordial. 10. After considerin9 the entire evidsnce, it is dear that there is no specific allegation against the respondents No. 2 and 3 but for the fact that some genera! atlegcri'ions are being made. At least there is no evidencs to connect the respondents No. 2 omd 3 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indion Penal Code. AA.oreover, after considering the entire evidence, court below has arrived to a part'icuiar conclusion of acquitting the respondents No. 2 oind 3 and the said findirsg cannot be cailed a perverse findlng. 11. After hearing counsei for the part'ies and going through the evidence available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittQ! 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, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court tdking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissibie in law, this Cour!" is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents No. 2 and 3/ accused of the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not cotl for any interference by thi.s Court. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present ca.se. and the same is dismissed accordingly. ,^°w*ff ¥titinSe"