^ ^ f BYNOTic>C- B/C.G./05 ^ '^r-?^^ ". W.Q/D-2S70W3Q. ';^D?NSCHEDULE Vi'^3ACT187f);" SIni IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l •Cl CR. M. P. NO.IS</! / 2008 ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. / 2008 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate District Rajnandgaon(C.G.) VERSUS 1. Vinod Dewangan S/o Maniram Dewangan Aged about - 35 years 2. Smt. Rambai W/o Maniram Dewangan Aged about 53 years 3. Maniram S/o Uday Ram Dewangan Aged about 56 years All residents of Labour Colony, Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECT30]N_^78(3'l AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(11 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 y^. .w! w' .^'^. ^' ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No.154of2008 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS Vinod Dewangan and others. Shri Pravin Das GA for the applicanVState. A APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O RD E R (04.11.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 64/2007 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence under section 306/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a merg intimation (Ex. P-7) was given by one Ganesh which was recorded by Sub Inspector R.K. Marawi, alleging that deceased Usha Dewangan wife of respondent No.1 Vinod Dewangan committed suicide by hanging in the bath room. It is further alleged that the deceased has committed suicide due to the harassment at the hands of the respondents/accused as she was not conceiving. 3. Counsel for the applicanVState submits that the Court below has committed a glaring legal error in awarding acquittal to the respondents/accused despite there being sufficient material available on record calling for their conviction. 4. Prosecution has examined 1 1 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied -2 — the charges levelled against them and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. Closer look of the statement of Devendra Devangan (PW-1 ) - the brother of the deceased has stated that he was told by the deceased on telephone that respondents/accused used to harass her on the ground that she was not conceiving. Similar is the tone and tenor of deposition of other witnesses such as Gitabai (PW-2) - the mother of the deceased, Smt. Uma Dewangan (PW-3) - sister of the deceased and Bholaram Dewangan (PW-4) - father of the deceased, and nothing specific has been spoken by any of them regarding cruelty meted out to the deceased by the respondents/accused. 6. To see whether the act of the respondents/accused can be termed as cruelty, a glimpse of "abetment" enshrined in Section 107 IPC appears to be the need, which reads as under: Section 107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First. - Instigates anyperson to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing ofthat thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment ofa material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to orat the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." None of the witnesses has deposed that the deceased was ever instigated by any of the respondents/accused prompting her to go for suicide, rather the mother of the deceased has stated that when after abortion the deceased was rendered week, treatment for the same was made available to her by the respondents/accused. Even if looked from any angle, the allegations made against the respondents/accused do not constitute the offence under Section 306/34 IPC as the ingredients of abetment defined in Section 107 IPC are completely absent in this case. 7. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment jmpugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. Sd/- ' Pritinker Diwaker Judge