cnr 50Ufr?'?SES ^ ••^'lQTIFICATiOWMQ.986aD-23;0/XXI- &'c. a /"s AS speeiRB? IN sc'-<EDt,La l&SOf- THE GOURT FESSACfi'f^r' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0. 6i ACOUirTAL APPEALN0. 72008 APPELLANT: The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Durg (G.G.) VERSUS :?r ^a. '.^A RESPONDENT: 10&6....^- -".;::^^ ^ Sumer Singh S/o.- Mangalsingh Gond, Aged about -39 years R/o.- Bagai Konha, P.S. - Dondi Lohara, District - Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 (31 AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 (1) OF X CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973. -ouLQL.thejudgement and findings of 1 — HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8PUR 8B : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKBR CR.M.P. N0. 61/2009 APPLICANT StateofCIihattisgarh Versus RESPONDBNT Sumer Singh J^S;9;^.?-S-U-5S^^ APPUCATION rOR GRANT OF LBAVE TO APPEAL UNDBR SBCTION 378(3) AND MEMO OF APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 3'TSW OF THE Cr.P.C. Acoesaaace: Sbri Paukaj Shrivastava, P.L. for the applicant/State, ORALORDER (23.11.2009) Heard on adnussion. Present petition filed uader Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2008 passed by AddL Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Durg ia Sessiqn Tdal No. 06/2008 whereby the accused/respondent has been acqiiitted of the chai^es leveled agamst liim under Sections 498-A aaid 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2007 Mei^ intunation was given by Suiiier Singh before fh.e concemed poUce station iaforining that on 19.09.2007, his wite Sharada Bai was missing and upon search dead body ofthe deceased was foiind in a hanging condition ia a tree ia fhc viUage itself. After iavestigation FIR (Ex-P/15) registered by poUce on 19.12.2007. 3. In support of its case, fhe prosecution tias examined as m.aav as thirteen witaesses. Three defence witnesses have also been examined. Statement of the accused was also recorded uader Section 313 of the Code of Crimiiaal Klt!r F "^'si'». 1 :*^,i s r» ': J ,'* -?. Procedure in which he denied the char^es leveled agauist him aud pleaded false impKcation iu the case. 4. Contention of ffae counsel for the appUcant/State is fhat on fhe basis of material avaitable oa record, thc court below ought to have coavicted the accused/respondent or at least would have given fiirther opp&rtunity to lead fhe evidence. 5. It is adinitted position that the marriaee of the deceased was solenuuzed with the accused about 8-9 years prior to the date of iucident and out ofwedlock the couple have two issues. SuMua Bai (PW-1), mofher offhe deceased though has inade sonie aUegation against the accuscd tout had also admitted fhe fact that ia their society fhere is no systeia of deiaaadiug or giviug dowiy. She has ftuther stated that fhe aUeged incident of beatmg fh.e deceased by fhe accused had taken place about three years prior to the date ofiacidcnt. She has also clearfy adnutted that no such complaiut what so ever was made by her aeitber before the society nor ia fhe poUce station. Even after the deafh of the deceased no aUegation was inade a^iast the accused about to e%ht to ten days fi-om tbe date of in.cident. Likewise, Geeta Bai (PW-3) though supported the case of prosecution to sonie exteut, she too had admitted that fhe so caUed demaad ofmoney was iiiade about one year pnor to the date of uicident. However, no such allegation was inade by her ia the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Jeturam(PW-4), brother of the deccased has oiity stated that the accused used to consume Hquor and iinder the iatoxication he used to beat the deceased. He did not inake aay alte^tion in respect of demaad of dowry. Vfahnuram (PW-5), laatemal iincle of tbe deceased has also not made aay aUegation agamst the accused, though he has stated that (here was some dispute between fhe couple. Son of the accused, namely Devendra Kumar (PW-12) has also been exanuned by the Court but he has not xnadc aay aUegation against the accused. ""SB& '^& ...^' -A S° 6. Proni the entire evidencc as adduced by the prosecution, no prima-facie case is made out agaiast ffae accused. Moreover leamed coiut below bas elaborately considered the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution while arriving to a particular conclusion of giving benefit of doubt to the accused/respondent whUe acquitting him. 7. It is setUed legal position fhat iu a case ^amst acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of fhe evidence led by the prosecution aad the trial Court takmg one view favoured fhe accused, reversion of the flndings of acqiiittal by tbe appeUate Court taking the other possible view into consideration is aot pcrmissifcle in law, this Court is of fhe view that the judginent impugned acqiuttuig the respondent/accused of Che offences Tinder Sections 498-A aad 306 offhe IPC is just and proper 8. I fiad no reason to iaterfere with fhe order impugned. In fhe resiilt, the petition fails and is disinissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge {