^.^•J^V-<nAA'''l^^\:-^^'L^''.^^^''^'V^^^>^^^^^ INTHEHIGHC<MJI^CM©H 'dmSGARHAT BILA^3UrK ^CI-.M.^.NO;^^ ^> •/2607 .- 1 ACQUITTALAPSEALNo. 72007 APPELLANT: RESFOKDEPCTS filed o". by Shr' t>^s)^-t>c^° •'""^rt^ R, t0 D.K. :9) - State OftChhattisgarh, Through- DisitFict M^istrate,^ Districf: Bilaspur (G.G.) : • 'VERSUS ; •.\ .'~'~-: Bisahu Das, S/o - Milap Das Manikpuri,i S\ged about- 47 years, • ^Yyajr.EaS^Bablu, . S/b- BlSsthu^Bas.Manikpuri^ Aged a1:)C)Ut - 18 years, BotM ai-e residents of Khajuri, Na'wagaQi-t, Badhiyapara, Takathpur, District - Bilaspur APPUCAnON EQR'©RAN^^.LEA^^Qi^PEA^^ AND,]VtE^QRANE@M.Mi^E^lij%S;,g^,Kr^^ .:eRimNAE.l»ig©©Eiifi^,.i©:%3.'--y^-^ ;:., HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr, Justice Pritinker Diwaker Cr.M.P. No.335 of 2007 APPELLANT State of Chhattisqarh RESPONDENTS 'Versus , Bisahu Das <& others. Shri Praveen Das, ©ovt.Advocate for the Stats/applicant. APPLICATION FOR 6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTtON 378f3) OF TME CO&E GF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 OR D ER (19.11.2009) Heard on I.A. No.01/2007 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeat. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the applicotion for grant of leave to appeal •is hereby condoned. 3. Also hecrd on admission 4. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgmsnt dated 28.2.2007 passsd by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Ssssions Trial No. 47/2006 whereby acquitting the respondents of the alleged offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. * 5. Co.se 'of the pr-osecution in brief is that the First Information Report (Ex.P/14) was fodged on the basis of merg intimation dated 14.8.2005 to the effect that one Ku.|Sangeeta! -hcri committed suicide by consuming some poisonoussubstanGe.i Altegation oigainsf the occused persons are that they h^/e^s^lgaS ^ S I :ii"^ rumor in the village that deceased Sangeeta was haying affair with one Nathu Yadav of the same viliage ond they used to meet each other in the outskirt- of the viliage. 6. In support' of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. State-ments of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure in which they have denied the charges leveled o.gainst them and pleaded their innocence and fatse implicfft'ion in ths case. ' — 7. Counsel for the aRplicant/State sjbmits that the court be!ow has committed a serious error in awarding acquitta! to the respondents/accused despite there being sufficient material available on record calling for their convisction. He further submits that on the basis of material available on record, the court below ought to have convicted the accused persons. 8. From the statement of Johit Das (PW-8), who is uncle of the deceased, it appears that he had apprehension in his mind that the deceased had consumed poison on account of rumor being spread by the accused persons. Almost similar statement has been made by Itwari bas (PW-11), father of the deceased & Teejan Bai (PW-12), mother of the deceased. Even if the entire case of prosecution is tdken as it is, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out because the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC ore missing from the present co.se. -A!! these aspects have been duly considered by the court- bejow whiie passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. After hearing counsel for the applicant and going through the.eyidence availabie on record and being very much consciousof the existing !ega! position that in a case against acquittal if two ( &/- views are possible on the basis of the evidence ied by the prosecution and the tria! Court taking one view favourable to 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 impugned acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper oind does not call for any interference bythis Court-. 10. In visw of the above factual and legal position, I do not find any reason to intsrferehce with the order impugned. 11. The petition fails and is occordingly dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker J^.i II I! li I I? liSll .Blils^ ;;l^:- BCe