1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUK CHHATTISGARH . Cw R ({v‘i‘é: \k ’\ Wg/ef r1. . No. Of 2001 2001 L. d APPLICATION FOR GHANT OF LEAVE -‘I'O APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378g3) AND WMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I 1 973 ’ APPLICANT The‘State of Chhattisgarh x APPELLANT Versus NON4APPLICANT l. Ramayan aged about 26 RESPONDENTS ‘ years, S/o Bodhiram ‘ L. 2. Bodhiram aged about 48 Yrs'S/oBisahuram Kurmi d 3. Ghasnin Bai aged about 54 years w/o Bodhiram All residents of village—Pouna, Police Station Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir Champa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISéARH §T BILASWJR Singie Bench : Hon‘bie Mr. Justéae Witinker- biwaker Criminai Aggeai No.658 of ZGGI APPLICAN? The 5mm 0f Chhm'tisgarh Versus RE5?ONDENT$ Ramayan & o‘rher's‘ Shri Neemj Meh’ra, PA... ‘or' 1‘he Smfelappgicani Shri Sameer Behar', caupse§ for fhe respondents, CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER S§CTION 3?8 g1} OF THE CODE OF u f CREMINAL PRGCEDUa'iE 3° U D G'M E N T (14.67.201m £ Presen'r appeai arises Gut ef The impugned judgment and order dafed 15.11.2(300 passed by Judicial- Magisfm‘fe, Firs? Class, Janjgir' in Cmmina! Case Ne». 5i1/ZOG0 whereby acqui'Hing We respgndenfs of Thg affence under $emicn 498-A read with Sectian 34 0f fhe Indian Pam Code. Z. Case of the prosecm‘ian iri briefjs €haf The marriage cf ¢ompiainam Augan Ba§ (PW-3) was solemnized with one Laxman about 6 years prior 1‘0 lcdging af The FIR, he, fmm 711993. She has alieged tho? she was subjeemd +0 crueH’y by her husband and aisn by The responden‘rs whe happens To be her brother-in-Iaw, fm‘her—m-iaw and mciher—in—lew. On fhe basie of this F.I‘R,, £nvestigcn‘ion was done and chalion was fiied on 12.7.1993 againsf the present respondents and the husband of t the complainant. 3. During trio} husband of the complainant nameiy Laxman ‘1- had absconded and therefore the trxa Caurt nroceeded wn‘h he case and has deCIded the some 4. SQ as 1‘0 hcld The accused/respendents gumy, prosecu'fion has examined as many as 6 witnesses .in suppor’r of ifs case. Sfafemenfs of The accused/respandems were mac) recorded under Secfion 313 cf The Cede ofCrimina! Procedure in which 'rhey denied fhe charge leveiled against ihem and pleaded Their- innccencg grid faisg impiicm‘icn in the Case, 5: By The impugned Judgment fhe com"? beiow has ucquifmd the responden'is/eceusesi 0f'the effence under $ectian 498-A read wifh SeCTion 34 of ihe Indian Pena! Cede, u f v 6. Couns’ei far fhe Siam/applicant submi‘is that an :fhe basis of evidence as adduced by The proseeutian, The emu“? ‘ below cugh’r 3‘0 have convicted the accused/respandenis. He submiis Thai ‘rhere is emugh 'mcder'iai avaiiabie cm recar-d 1 warmming canvicfien of ihe respondents/accusedi ?. On fhe ofher' hand, caunsel for The Sfafe supports The impugned judgmenf and submifs fhaf impugned Judgment is in accordance wh‘h law and There is no infirmiiy in ‘ihe same. 8. Heard counse! for The parties and perused the materiai available on record including the judgment impugned. . 9, From the perusal of the First Informatian Report, it is clear that there is no aliegation against the respondents for raising any demand of dowry whereas while making the court statement complainant Aagan Bai (PW—3), Guharam (PW-1) and Radha Bai (PW-2) have improved and have also made allegation of demand of dowry, It appears from‘the record that there was some minor dispute between the complainant and the g respondents on account of breakage of urn, except this there is no other cogent and reliable evidence on which basis it can l be said fhm‘ The complainant was subjecfed, m hamssmenf cr' cruel‘ry by The re$pandenT5. AH ’rhese aspects have bean duiy considerad by fhe ccur'T belaw while passing The §mpu9ned judgment 9f acqui‘rml, 10. I find n0 reason To interfere in The judgment 9f acquit’ml pur‘ricular‘ly The view Taken by The caur'T below is one of The possible view. IT is a seTTled legal posiTion ThaT in a case againsT acquiTTal if Twa views are possible on The basis of The *evidence led by The prosecuTion cmd The Trial CourT Taking one View favofimble To The accused, reversion of The findings of aciquiTTal by‘The appellaTe CourT Taking The oTher possible View inTo consideroTion, is noT permissible in law, This CourT is of The view Thai“ The judgmenT impugned acquiTTing The respondenTs/ accused of The offence under 5ecTion 498-A read wiTh SecTion 34 of The Indian Penal Code, is JusT and proper and does noT eall for any inTerference by This CourT. 11. For The reasons aforemenTioned, There is no meriT in The / presenT case and The same is dismissed according! 'sé" i aw 2 \\N ”w //‘//’”X H 7 9T‘\{\“ \ke‘ 3‘,age ‘/ D/— /