H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPU R Criminal Misc. Petition No.81 of 2011 The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Versus Anil Mishra, S/o Dukhiram Mishra Aged about 31 years Ram Avtar Mishra, S/o Dukhiram Mishra Aged‘about 35 years Ranju @ Ranjita Mishra, D/o Anii Mishra, ”Aged ab0ut 28 years Kanshiprasad Mishra, S/o Dukhiram Mishra, Aged about 52 years, Sandhyarani Mishra, D/o Kanshiprasad Mishra, Aged about 41 years Ail~arei~R/o Village Sonsari, P.S. Pamgarh, Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) No.4 & 5, Present Address Village Bhadhora (Bhilai Bazar), P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba (C.G.) {Appiication for grant of Ieave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminalrlagr'gcgdure..1 973} APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: 1. Present: Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/applicant. Division Bench: - Hon’ble Mr. T.P.'Sharma and I-lon’ble Mr. R.L. Jhanwar, JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (22-2-201 1) T.P.’Sharma, J: - 1. Present application for grant of Ieave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of he CrPC has been filed after 47 days of its limitation. . Heard on l.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the‘application for grant of leave to appeal. On 'due' consideration, we are satisfied that the State/applicant has been able to explain the delay of 47 days in filing the application for grant of eave to appeal. Consequently, l.A.No.1 is allowed. Delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby condoned. dwm ww ..r,.w....n...1 pr. par ,vbn, (g, hr“? v‘ e...,.-_‘. . . t l" . l i l v @v . Also heard on admission. . By this application under Section 378 (3) of the CrPC, the State/appliCant has prayed for grant of Ieave to appeal against the judgment of acquittai dated 25—9-2010 passed by the Additionai Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No.77/2010, whereby learned Additionai Sessions Judge has acquitted the non-applicantsherein of the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 149 & 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC o the ground of insufficiency of evidence. . Learned State counsei submits that as per case of the prosecution, deceased Jayadevi Mishra —— wife of Umakant, died in the house of the non-applicants on 14—2—2010 at about 9.30 a.m.. as a result of burn injuries. After investigation, Charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from' where learned Additionai Sessions Judge. received the case on transfer for trial. Charges under Sections 302 read with Section 149 & 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC have been framed against the non-applicants and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Iearned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the non—applicants of the charges. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial Court has disbelieved the letter Ex.P-12 written by the deceased before some duvs of the incident and has acqurtted the non applicants on the ground that they have not examined the daughter of the deceased who was eyewrtness to the inCIdent. Learned State counsel also submits that the non-applicants have not offered any explanation that how the deceased died and who cause Injuries He contends that the case Is arguable on merits I , . . ”mp: M , . As per the Judgment impugned copy of charge sheet and copy of evrdence of the Witnesses, espeCIaIIy eVIdence of Ramnath Mishra (PW- 2), who has lodged FIR, the deceased has committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil over her and set her ablaze. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. K.K. .Dahire (PW-6) Vide Ex.P,-t4 , which reveals that death was as a result of burn injuries. No substantive ante mortem injury other than burn injuries has been noticed by the doctor. This is not the case under Section 306 or Section 304B of the IPC. ln case of commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder, the prosecution is required to establish the fact that death was homicidal and not accidental or suicidal. The prosecution was also under obligation to adduce evidence to a” y 1 i ,«y ,....t,w. n d