EMINAL CASE N9. 2\{% OF ”1999 CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. $\Q\ « OF 1999 ‘ mWWWW”!IIMHIHW 2415 APPELLANT : State or Madhya Pradesh Ve rsus wl \ \_W ‘ RESPONDENT : 1. Shiv Prasad son of Bharatlal aged 2h years :r/LIW g/gwg‘FWxLwc‘,’ .2. Bharat Lodhi son of Phaguwa, aged #5 ‘years 3. Phu Basan Bai w1£e of Bharat aged 40 years, "" 6? ‘/\, “ A11 residents of Khudmudi, Police Station Dongargark District z Rajnandgaon(M.P.) APPLICATION mm GRANT OF LEAVE To APPEAL UNDER SECTIADN §78(1;1) A gRmINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND CFUIMINAL APPEAL £AINST ACQUITTAL UNDER SECTIQN 378 Q) cmMINAL PRGCEDURE CODE r i x @ A l HIGH COURT OF €HHATTE$6ARH .AT BILA$FUR 5ing§a Bench i Hon’b1a Mr. 3%?5423 ?ri‘riakar givmker Crimina! Agneal Ne. 33.61 cf 1399 Stam' of Madhya Prades‘h Ch‘nm’fisgarh) (new i APPELLANT Varws RESPGNDENTS Shiv Pmsmd é: omers. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advacaira for :the appgiiamlfzmta APPLICATION FOR QRANT OF LEAVE TO APPE££ UNB£R ECTIGN '378 iii €RE%ENAL PRQCEDU§E €OE‘E AND CR§xHNAL Shri Mahy Kumar ghaduri, counsel fcr fha respomiems‘ W APPEAL AeAzNsT ACQUITTAL xmagg Simw aza g1) a? THE wmE 0? aaxgagmi. PRGCEDURE w (amiamo) ‘ Heard. is dirgm‘ad agaim‘r fha impugned judgme-m This appeai Firs? Additionag Sessians Judge, dated 3Q.7.1998 passed by i6 undar Secfioh .Imbai in The year 1994 and Tram The beginning ' en The coupia. 1T is alieged ThaT 0n 29.02.1é96 The deceased: aommi’r’red suicide by cansumi‘ng Tine basis cf merg inTimaTian EXP/2 Rajnandgfaon in Sessians Triai No. 142/1997 acqui?fmg The respandents/accusad sf é‘ha affences punishab 306/34 cf ‘ihz Endian ?enal Cede. 2. During pandency 9f The present appeai, rapenden‘r No. 3 ?hui Bascm Bai is raggrted To have died‘ 3. The pmsecu‘f‘ion sfory in nu’rsheH is Tm? ’rhe marriage 0f The respondem Na. 1 Shiv Pmsaci was seiemnized wifh The deceased Jam} There was some dispuTe beTwe poisomus subsTsnce. On iadged‘ by BahaTram {PW—2), FER (EXP—12) was regisTered ag‘ains’r The respcndam‘s en 5.3.1996 for #‘ne camm§s$i<m of offence 1 under Saddam 3Qé/34 sf fha Indian Penal C0da.‘ 4. In 5upp0m‘ of im casa pmsecuf'an Ms examinsd as many as 11 wn‘nzsses Smvmen’m cf Th? re<pand9m+sfcrrused ware alse recorded under 5etmon 313 0f *ho Cade m‘ O‘mxmcd Procedure m l I which They denied The charges leve§ed agaémsf them and pleaded their innagence and faise imphm’fion m The case. 5. Affer‘ hearing Earned ccuneel fer iffne parfies fhe‘ccur’r beiew has acqu‘g‘hfed the r'espandem‘sfcccused vide judgmen‘f dame 30.7.1998. 6. Learned ceunse! fer The <+a?e <mmi’rs mad impugned ' judgment acqum'mg +he reepdndem's m bed m *he eye 0f Iaw and is based on perverse angina He submn‘e ‘rhm‘ despite r ewdence of Sxemm {PW 31 fn’rher 0*: v? deeegeed Deendzxya! Verma (PW 6) brether of fhe deceased and Omker (PW-7) unde of The deceased, The mgr? belaw nae erqwt’fed fhe eccusec: persons.;Heeiso submh‘s ‘rha’r a‘hese wg’messes have categorical deposedfagains? dii The accused persons and mere was no occasion ferl‘fhei caur? beiew fro 'disbedeve the emtemems of These I witnesses. 7. On fhe o‘rher hand counsel fer fh’e respendenTs/accused supports The Jxldgmem impugned and suevrxTs T‘mT presenT ‘is d case where The ceuple cauTd noT ad TusT and There used Ta be some dispuTe between Them He submTs Thn" even on The doTe of l madenT There was some dTspIlTe beTween The deeeased and The respondenTs as a resui‘r of which on orcounT of anger The deceased appears To have com..T+ed smode He aiso SUbrnITs TheT’ Judgmen’r of acquzTTaT came; be mTerfered wTTh In ordmary ‘ a course un!eSs were ls perverse ‘u‘dmg Gr cnggn‘? mamma ava:iab!e on reccn'j worrm’rmg mierfar “ca mike said Judgment 8. I have heard. mung? fnr‘ +11” paruas and perwed The meteria! avaHmie on recor’d me‘udmg Juaamem :mpugneg 9. - From The evidence ayaiiebEe en records, his, deer fhef i'he 2 marriage of. fhe deceased wee soiemnizedrayifh i‘he'acchsed Shiv _ Pr'asad and fmm the beginhéng may usaa? f0 quarrel wifh’each other for one reason or The omen IT is aiso clear from fhe’ E record The? the mmmmoma! hcese of +he deceasee wee Jue’r abauf r40 kms away from ‘Hqe hou<e of her parark and she was m a hebi’r fo wsn‘ her neren‘fs frequerhlv ThnJgh Smmm (PW-3\ fm‘her' of ‘rhe deceased nos moda vermin ailamhons agains? Cd! fhe accused persow by saying ”that n? was 'nformed by his , ’daugh‘rer That she woe eelng beefen by *he acu<ed persons on many accasmns and as a resuh" ef which she had susTamed mJumes This wwnpss has given a reference of of ieas? three madenfs where +he decaased has wsued hm and had Informed ‘iabouf The crua Ty by The acCJ$ed pm’wons Haw/ever he has further cafegemcaliy admrr’red ‘rha‘? m compkvm‘ whcn‘sopver' was r made by him either befar‘e i’he pahce oh befar'e The Pancnaya’r or y even before fhe Commum‘ry M1 rh he belonr‘s Fe has fur’reer‘ _ smfed mm” h1< daughfei“ use to vgsif h < house §requenflv which was obJecfed by +he accu<ed Shiv Phased by saymg “rho? the frequenf View of ”the dereased w The paperws house xs af¥ecfmg h!s repu‘rahor' cmd a? ”rha? pomf or hme The Wl’mess had asked ’fhe accused Shiv Wasad am” fa quarrel on earh smal! Issues He r has further s+med fha’r whenever his doughfer romes To him r? ls ‘NW k‘ he accused Shiv Drasad wha used ‘io Visa ’{he hause and To fake is daughter He has o!se admired the ac? mo? he belengs f i l I ? h 9 ,I , . i x kodh: Cammura TV rmrJ m fhe wiiag? than? m a seme’ry 5f “the Smd Cammumfy of which h’s Toww gs Tn? bécad b W" desp Te Thm‘ m ‘1 camplcum‘ whm‘soeva” wm madzz fa a‘h? €9cwrv If is c£so cir’ar ’rhaT The sm‘remen? 0f *hw wgmas$ was mmrdgd under Section 161 CruRC. an 153.1996 and bafm‘e Thm he had nm‘ mad? any E effom‘ TO make camplmm‘ agams‘r the accused pprsans Deendayoi § smw‘emen't That hgs Slsfer‘ used m Inform him Hm? she waw bgmg r v s I , x > > Verma (PW-6) brother of The dPceased has s'mred m his subJecTed 1‘0 crueh‘y by The arcused persens He has also admn‘md fhcd for the f1rs* Time hg made eiigggmgn aamm’r Tha accused persons after 15 days of fhe madam He admn‘s Thai? n0 complalm‘ wha’rsoever' wa¢ made en‘her- f0 fhe Sac'efy or The Panchaycx’r or fa The police m respect cf any mmdem‘ ef crLeHy ca" i bem‘mg by The accused persans Qmkah {PW 1’) who ls Land? cf The deceased has made el’egm‘lon of cruehy bu? admifs The? n0 effer'f or- complamf was made before anyone regarding ‘the conduct of the accused persons From The ewdence cf Independenf wwnesses namelv Bahaiham (PW-2) Revarom (PW-4X ‘V Y 8t Mangru (PW 5) whc were residing In The same Village rt is clear y L - ‘ fhe’r no alieom‘lon whatsoever has been made bv Them agems‘f the ’ , ' t‘ accused persons Thus There remains anly The ewdence of Three , 7 E é mTeresTed WITnesses name!y Smmm (PW—3) Deendeya! Verma (PW-6) c§ Omker (PW-73 as dzscussed shave m The sTaTemenT of Theses wn‘nesses There are ma‘rerxa! ImprovemenT and IT appears V 9t : ThaT To make offence graver They have exaggeraTed Thew vers'on ‘ , m The courT A” These aspecTs have been du v conSTdered by The /" .i ‘ “awe" ‘x T courT below while passing The Tmpugned JudgmenT of acqUITTal ' f t 16 Thus afTer hearing counsel for The parTJes and considering ‘ \ The maTerlal avatlabie on record as we” as The e‘aboraTe Judgmem‘