coum FEESEXEMPTED Bv B‘zggms NOTIFICATION OF THE As spmmga cam N0v Fag 9950/13- w 3323;??? AC‘Tk-famgE gww W¥$ H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Cr. MP. NO. gxi 2O ACOUITTAL APPEAL NC); [ O7 IN THE HJQ APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate Distt. — Durg (0G,). Prakash Gajbhiye S / o Tukaram Gajbhiye Aged about ~40 years, R/ o Marathi mohalla, Kosa nagar,Supe1a, PS v Supela, Distt. Durg. NON—APPLICANTS VA f. RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL ' y [VS i APPLICATION 378 3 AND MEMORANDUM FOR G OCEDURE OF CODE APPEAL 19‘134 U' S 378 1 OF CRIMINAL PR / V ~A”. — HIQH COURT O? §HHATTI$$ARH AT BILA$PUR Single Bench 1 Hon'b3e Mam Jus‘iice Prifivxker Diwakzr Cr.M.P. No.349 of 20G9 AWLICANT S’m‘fe 0f Chhuffisgarh Versus NON—APPLECANT Pmkash Gajbhiye san of Tukamm Gmbhwg Shri Praveen Das, Dy. 62A. for The apphcan? Shri CJK. Rao, counsel for ‘l'he non—agpiicanf. APPLICATION FGR GRANT OF LEAVE TQ APPEAL UNDER 5ECTIGN 3?8 (3} OF THE CODE GF €RIMINAL ?RC}CEDU§E. 0 R D E R (15-02—20i0) Present peTiTion filad under Sec‘mm 3:78 (3) of ”fine Ccda of Criminal Pmcedur‘e i£ direc’raé against? The impggnad / judgmen‘r daTed 26.6.2007 passed by Sassions Judge, Durg in / V $essions Trial No. 293/20Gé acqui??%ng The non—appEcanf of The alleged offence punishable uncle!" Secflen 306 cf The lndieh ?ehal Code. 2, Brief feels sf 'Ihe case are The? 9h The basis of merg infimm‘ion (ExPw?) defied 25102006. FIR. (EXP-19) was regisTer’ed (gems? the accused/nah—appllcant an 27.10.2006. IT is alleged lha’r ‘l'he marriage ef The respondem was solemnlzed wifh The deceased Smf. Usha abau‘i‘ ? — 8 yeare prior 1e fhe dale of inciden? Le. 20.10.2006. if is alsa alleged lhaf as The deceased was subjecfed 1'0 cruelh/ by lhe hen—applicant she commh‘led suicicle by se’r‘lmg herself ablaze. Affer invesTigaTicn challah was filed mad “rhe hon—applicant was " fer ‘lhe effenees angler $eelian 498—.A and 30$ 0f eraseemed The Zndéan Penal Code. 3. In supper? of its c.0556, The prosecm‘ion has examined a$ many as 12 wimesses, Sfm‘gmam 0f The nan—appiicanfr was also recorded under Sec’rion 313 of The Code 0f Crimina! Procedure in which he denigd The charges ievgled against him and p!ecxd.ed innocence and fake impHcwion in The case. This apart wimgsses nomaiy Mundami (DW—l) and Rajkumar‘ Baghmare (DW—Z) have giso begh examined by fhe defence in shipyard cf i'rs case. 4. By The impugned judgment The coum‘ beiaw has convicted ’{he accused/ncn—apphcanf far The offence punishable under Secficn 498-.A Qf The lndidn Pena! Code; Hewever, he has been acquif‘ied of fhe charge under Sec‘iian 3Q6 of The Endian i’enai Code. '5. Counse! for The Sia‘ie/appiican'i submi‘fs ihaihwhen on ‘The same seT of evidence beiieving The prosecuTion sTory correc‘r, accused has been convicied for ‘i'he offence under Secfion 498-A cf The Indian Pena! Code, he OughT To have convicTed fer offence under SeeTion 306 0f The Indian Pena! Cede aiso. 6. On The oTher hand, caunsei far The non—appiicanT submiTs ThaT even if The enTire case of The prosecuTion is Taken as iT is, no case whaTsoever‘ has been made euT againsT The non- appiicanT of The affence punishebie under SecTicn 306 of The Indian Pena! Code and, Therefore, The impugned order is sTricTly in accordance wiTh law and There is no infirmiTy in The same. He fur’rher submi‘rs fhcx‘f in a mufina manner, judgmam‘ of acquih‘ai came? be imerfered hwh by Ceur? uniass fha finding as given by the court beiow is fgund “m be gewame. 7. Main case Gf T}’xe pmsecm‘icn hinches upon we s‘rafemeni’ of Smf. Asha Dcngre (PW-4) arid Smf. Subhqdm Bai (PW—é). Smf. Asha Dongr‘e (PW-4) - $is’rer—in4aw 0f E‘he deceased in her caum‘ sm‘femem has sfm‘ed ma? when after fhe bum incidem‘ she me-r The deceased, she was infcrmed by her Tha‘f since lesT 8 —. 10 days, accused was harassing her and used To \ come a1” home affer' censuming liquor, She fum‘her' sTaTes That accused used TO suspecT her' charac‘fer‘ however subsequem‘ly “this wh‘ness has been deciared hosfile. Smf. Subhadra Bai (PW—6) — maTher‘ of fhe deceased in her' caur'i siaiemem‘ has si‘a‘red Thai when afier' fhe incideni‘, she met ihe deceased ai‘ / The hospital, she was informed by fhe deceased Thai The accused used To beaT her afTer consuming iiquor and has furTher Toid ThaT The accused was noT going for any work. and used To deubT her characfer, excepT These Two wiTnesses, There is no oTher material evidence againsT The accused. 8, AfTer considering The enTire evidence and The documents available on record, The CourT below has convicTed The accused for The offence under SecTion 498—A of The Indian Penal Code buT has acquiTTed him for The offence under SecTion 306 of The Indian Penal Code, To have a ready reference, SeoTion 306 IPC is quoTed belaw: 306. Abefmeef of suicide. — If any person commiTs suicide, whoever abeTs The commission of such suicide, shall be punished K\ wifh imprisanmanf of either descripi‘ion for a Term which may exfend TO fan year‘s, and she.“ aisc be liable TO fine‘ TO see whefhar' ‘rhe ac? af Th5: accused can be termed as cruelfy, a glimpse cf “abgmgnf' emhr‘ined in Sadion 10? PC appears To be The need, which reads as under : Secfz'on .707. ,4 person aéeis Me dying 0f a ffulng, w/m — First - Insfigcn‘gs any person To do that fhing; or 5ecand/y - Engages w/fh one or more ofher ¥ person 0r persons 127 any consplhacy for 7‘l1e doing g of f/Iaf filing, if an acf or I’l/ega/ om/esvon fakes E pieces in pursuance of f/Iaf conspiracy, and In order fo fne doing of fnof f/H’ng; or Thirdly - Infenf/ono/n/ aids; by any acf or Mega! omission, fire doing of f/qaf Ming. Exp/anofion I. - A person who, by wil’lfu/ i m/sr'epr'esenfaf/on, or by wtY/fu/ concea/menf of a maferia/ facf which he is bound fo disclose volunfan/b/ causes on procures, or offempfs fa cause or procure, a Ming fo be done, is said f0 insf/‘gafe fne doing of fhaf Ming, Exp/onofion 2. - Whoever, eifner prior i0 or of f/ie fime of file comm/ssion of an acf, does anyfhing in order fa faa'iifafe fhe commission fhereof, is said f0 aid fhe doing of #iaf ocf. Applying fhe evidences of ‘l'he presem‘ case wh‘h fhe above defini‘rions in par’ricu!ar fhe definition as given under $ec‘rion 107 of The Indian Pena! Code, respondenT/accused cannot be convic‘ied for The offence under Secfion 306 of the lndion Pencd Code, moreover, after due appreciation of the evidence avaiiabie on record, the Court below has arrived at the ' conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its 9. After hearing counsel fer The par‘ries and going through ’i'he evidence available on record and being very much conscicus of the exisiing legal posi’rion fhm in a case agairw‘r acqui’r’ral if mo views are possible on The basis of the evidence led by the prosecu’rion and The Trial Cour? faking one view favourable lo ‘ihe accused, reversion of lhe flndings of acquii’ral by The appella‘re Courl Taking fhe oi'her possible view info considera‘lion, is no‘l permissible in law, ihis Court is of the view Thai the judgment impugned acquitting the non- applicant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the lndian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above factual and legal position, 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment im pugned‘ 11. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. v «alder _ Y“ 3“dge \\ / " y gol— twat?“ ,/r t