AeeyseApersorts/ Respondeats INCT-HE HIQH GQURt OE J'UDlC^TURE AT BIIASJPUR GI-IHATTISQARH c^r\? ^&i': ''s-0^ Al.Cr. ©.N0.- i- '©P2 Cr.A. No. OR 2005 1) 2) 3) ^) S) 6) 7) 8) StateQf'EIUhattisgarh StaLtioii Iillichai^ey Pylice Statioin; SaT^aon (CG) IherinwNo. 102/2001 VERStJS E)eN'lal,S^>Pyranla|0ewangan, :i:.S':.:..€^^_^_vj.::,^ fltiraiilal, |S^>,M^^Ram Dewanflaiiit 'a®e|:raboutpi:yeara,^:,: '!. i: ^' 1 i^'-: llBgnthBai.llWOPuranlalDewangan, jag]e|sago|itEg2iyeais,,:' | : : ^ |Mlaj|a!1Suni|f. S/o Puranlal speweingan,iaged;abput 33 years, (.isha tej, W//o Uttara Kumar, aged|al30(rt IItiandarajiigS/OPuranlal.Dewangaf), IsEge8:;atwfitt6yeare,' , .,':^'/. 4: |^sha8St;!|^WaT'handaramE)e^angan SQhiBKun|gB®/o'<?urari!alD»jvatigan, APRLI£Mg®»^B@!8;aQ a itajSy^.^i'I.Sl.^Gt)6Wft::ffi'Ii §^lii'i^jdeitii&fWUag6i--|iSHa,siiS.-!tii aga|i^|6n|g^sB.;|~.)anjg|r-eihSR^|ij]( MffllKlliiiiM'EiiiBiNagBiUB i^iTTlS^i^^tS® u opaHE•iiasiiagaaifiaE \w i3^!; w^ 411?.-:.^i';.U.^;"!^-'.:-:~i '3t:s;u>.a.i mGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hoa. Mt. Jvstice PtUdaSsst Wwabet) CR.M.P. No. 381 of2008 APPELLANT RESPONDEMTS VERSUS State of CIihattisgarh Devlal and others. Shri Akhfl Mishra, Dy, GA for the appeIlant/State. APPUCATION UNDBR8BCnOBT378 (11 OF THE CODB OP CRIMIMAL PROCBDORE. ORJ3BR (19.04.2010) The iastant appeal is directed against fhe irapugned judgment dated 11.4.2005 passed by fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir ia Crimiaal Case No. 640/2002 acquittmg fh.e respondeats/accused of the offences punistiable under Sections 498-A & 323/34 ofthe IPC. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are fhat on 21.9.01 FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged by the coiaplamaut Neera Bai (P.W.-5) wife of Devlal (resp. N0.1) aUegiug in it fhat her marriage was Solenuaized wifb. the accused/respondent N0.1 about 10-12 years back aad umnediately after one year of her marriage sfac was subjected to cruelly by aU the accused persons. It is further aUeged that ftte respondents used to deinand cash of Rs. 40,000, T.V., fan aad cooler as dowiy. 3. The prosecution has exnmined eleven witaesses ia support of its case. Statements of fhe respondents/accused were also recorded imder Section 313 of the Code of Cnminal Procedure m. which they denied the charges leveUed against fheni aad pkaded fheir mnocence and false implication ia the case. <l 4. After hearmg the parties fhe Court below acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge leveUed against them. Hencc , tTiis pctition. ^ s^m ••- s ^ i L .? J |S;i'?agtlsB35^ >*;•• |^^,^i|?;;^^ is.^^»-^^' 5. Counsel for fhe appcUant/State submlts that fh.e Court below bas erred in law in acquittiag aU the respondents. He subinits (hat at least the Court below ought to have convicted fhe respondent No.l/accused for fhe offence under sectfons 498-A of the IPC but havlng igaored the evidence adduced by the prosecution aad thereby awaTdiug acquittal to ttieia on technical ground it has landed itselfin a grave legal error. 6. On fhe other haad counsel for fhe respondents/accused supports the imipugaed judgnient 7. Heard counsel for fhe pardes and perused the judgmeat impugaed and inaterial available oa record, Proin fhe record it appears that complainaat Neera Bai could not adjust in the joiat faiiuly and uuder the coinpcllm.§ circumstances the respondent N0.1 started liviag wifh her separately by hirmg accominodation but yet the coinplauiant could not adjust wlfh him. From. the statCBaent of the coinplamant it also appeara ftiat she has exaggeratcd her veision while deposing ^ainst the accused persons, Even the witocsses have not supported the case of prosecution aad considering all fhe aspects, the Court below appears to have recorded its findiags acqiiittmg the respondents/accused based on the material available on record. 8. After going fhrough the niaterial available on record aad beiag very m.uch conscious of fhe existing legal position fhat in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of fhe evidence led by fhe prosecution and fhe trial Court takmg one view favoured the accused, thls Court is offhe considered opinion that reversioa of fhe fiadiags of acquittal by the appeBate Court teking the other possible view into consideration, is not pemassible ia law aad fherefore the judgment impugaed acqiutting the respondents/accused of fhe offence uiider Section 498-A aad 323/34 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant aay interference by tfais Court, Accordingly, the leave to appeal sought for by the applicant/State is hereby refused. Pritinker Diwaker Judge