< LN THE ffiGH COIIRT OF .roDICATUIff?(T BILASPUR CHBL\TTIS<3 Applicant Appeilant RgsBoodenls 3^ ^TT^) ^.^('.^fii Msc. CtMnmal Case^ift. ;/^? pf 2003 "Cmninal Appcal NoT~ -'" of 2003 ^.-Z^—-r^-^_.....•••'" '^••^^3^^ byShci .^f^*^^J^o^ StateofChhattisgarh Vereus vy-j.\.\.i^. >-n R.. '!S34\V\ d'7 R.. to i-'.n- l.Suvaliram, agud abuul 40 ycara, S/o Kujuram Jaiavi&l 2.Chintamam Jaiswai, aged about 22 yeais, S/o Swakram Jaiswai S.Kandabiii, agu<i abuut 38 yuars, \V/o Sevaia'am Jaiswal ,MI resident ofviBage Tonatar, Police Station Dhatapara, District Raijpnr (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL L1NDER SECTION 378{3> ANH MKMO 0V APPF.AT. TTNDER SF.CTTON 37S( n 0? THE CODROE CR1M1INAL PROCEUURJi: 1^73 wAv VI Rl-li<* wff ^n^<i st>*ii<t> ^~5T «41'41CT<(, yTll'M'IS, jq<y11'H'J,< n *11NCTI a»*1!«t> sfM. h.,vjs^: ^Odlfo •f-—-^--<---^200 sn^? 'T^T (1j?i3^li) TOWn^iftff 3)1^1 SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Moh 09-11-2010 Shri SaUsh Gupta, Govemnr) 1-feard on appiication for iea^ Learned counsei for the testimony of Lata Jaiswal (PW1) vf (PvV2), M.P.Toppo (PW3), ChhaU^i but the appeiiate Court vide impug|n the charges of commission of offe| for the applicant argued that disbeiieved the version of the (PW1), Ghanararn Jaiswai (PW2)J minor contradictions and omissi< beyond aii doubt that Lata crueity by the non-applicants there^ Upon perusai of the order Court has marshaled the evidencel ths prosscution by recording fii^ evidence to show that the compj further Uiat fne testimony of M.P.' independent witnesses does nof Leamed iower appeilate Court wherein the indsoendent witnessete no dowry was demanded and ther^ pro^ecution hate '*lll<-ll1-f MIMcfl if 'fe^ <Rl<SK ^affiman^r »nShrivastava, j. ent Advocate Tor the State/ peffiioner. /e to appeai. applicant argued that relying upon the 'hich is corroborated by Ghanaram Jaiswai (PW4), triai Court convicted respondents ned judgment acquitted the respondsnts of ice under Section 498A. Learned counsei the iearned iower appeiiate Court has and the testimony of Lata Jaiswai M.P.Toppo \FW3) and Chhatlai (PW4) on )ns though the prosecution has proved was harassed and subjected to committed offence under Section 498A. mpugned, it is found that the iearned trial on record and has disbeiieved the case of iding that the defence has iaid refiabte ialnant had affair in her own \riiiage and oppo (PW3) and Chhatia! (PW4) who are L inspire confidence and is improbabte. ^ aiso considered the evidence on record have stated that at the time af mamage, is no custom of dowry in their community. JaisWaiA/icUm there^y ,^CTIei!t,<R:l'i<?IH—FS.'147—2/2010—1,00,000. -""^ '.. '\ s& '•'5^s^ ^l '"^"•l-t.^F*'^ sn^r qn ft-ii* ^rar 3Ti^fT st>*iiq> Dtisp'J 'S^ -<fWM<',, www\e, hviw^. &>t^<)fcl ..W®. 1-0 3II^?I ~^V (iq(3<<<^) |S4flt*tR tlf^fl -Stll^ifl The nnding recorded by appreciation of evidence on perverse or wholiy baseiess. The and plausibie. Therefore, 1 do not nnd ai disrnisseu. . - }amed lower appeiiate Court is based on rec4>rd and the same cannot be said to be Iflnding of acquitta! appears to be possibte •; -w tiiiti'i'i'ii iiiyit 'if fest <1»1<<;1< ^affWTsn^i Wmf^l <iWh SS°IISII> ffiFiiiilIH-^Ft'l47—2/2010—l ,00,000. y merit in thjs petition and is accordingiy Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge