CF0000060187 S)v" •V- ^ ^^^^kSn^-R -^ <\ )0 IN THE HIGH COURT ' OP MADHH, TRAEESH AT JABALPUR, cM?JR^~~Noa ;''3BO£^'.''.'y1996^ - CRn-IDB.L i^ISL 1^0» /~~"I^^, APffiLLMCTs- : RESPOXDEHTS.S- THE STATE OF N*P* 'THROUGH : DIST^ICT M^ISTRa'CE, BI^ASSUR*- -VERmJS- ; C, ;..--• BHAMT LAL B^HU S/0 B&m^H$..-^. SAHXX, AGED 24. IffiA&S,'l/'a.TILIAGE PSEM, P-S^. I^THERia, - %STT * BILASPIJ&(EP).<. •' APPLICATIOH FOR LE.AVE TO APJbE^L UNIER SECTION 578(3) CR<P»C. A:P AL :UNDB& .£iECTIQN.j7^L12_.CR»^ .. , ..:-.. , .^--c?__.^_ -<-__ .^^: HIGH CGURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR 8B : HON*BLB MR. JU8TICB PRITI11KBR mWAKBR CR.A. N0. 1481/1998 APPBLLAMT Stete of Madhya Pradesh versus RB8PONDBNT Bharat Lal Sahu v'~ Shn Praveen Das, Dy, G.A. forthe State/appeUant Shri K,A. Ansari, Sr, counselwith Shri R,L,Bajpai, counsel fbr the respondent. APPLICATION POR LBAVB TO APPBAL UNDBR 8BCTION 378(31 OP THB CR.P.C. ORDBR (12.07.2010) The present appeal filed under Sectioii 378(3) of the Cr,P.C. is dirccted agaiast fhe iinpugned order and judgaiient dated 13.3.96 passed by tfae Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class, MiingeU ia Cniniaal Case N0, 948/1988 whercby acquitting fhe respondent/accused for the alleged offence uiider Section 498-A offlie IPC. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are fhat fhe niardage of fhe deceased Shailendn Bai was solemnized with ffae accused/respondent ia fhe year 1985 and she died on 15»2.87 after sustaixung bura iajuries ia fhe iQatrinionial house. FIR dated 12.3.87 was registered agamst the accused/rcspondeat Afber investigation, chaUan was filed on 3,8,87 and fhe respondent was prosecuted for fhe offence under Section 498-A offhe IPC. 3. In support of its case, the pro^cution has examiaed 15 witaesses, Statenxent of Ihe accused/respondent was also rccorded under Sectfon 313 of fhe Cr.P,C. in wfaich he denied fhe charges leveled s^aiast him aad pleaded his mnocence and false miplication xa fhe case. 4. After hearing fhe parties, fhe trial C^urt has acquitted ttie accused/respondent offhe offence as mentionedabove. Hence, fhe prcsent appeal. 5. Contention of Shri Das is that ia fbe prcsent case aM ffae material witaesses i.e. Baijuram (P.W.-l), father of tiie deceased, Shanti Bai (P.W,-2), motfaer of fhe deceased, Biseshar (P.W.-3) iincle of fhe deceased and Oita Bai (P.W.-5) villager have deposed against fhe accused/rcspondent but the Court below has erred ia law in acquitthig fhe accused/respondent 6. On the other haad, it has been ax^ued by Shri Ansari, coiiasel for the rcspondent fhat ludbrtunately fhe deceased died because of accideat, He subxnits fhat no rcport whatsoever was lodged by fhe rclative of fhe deceased and fhat itself shows fhat they werc not aggrieved, 7. Heard counsel for ffae parties aad ^rused fhe material avaUable oa record. From fhe evidence of the witoesses namely Baijuram (P.W.-l), Shanti Bai (P.W.-2), Biseshar (P.W.-3) aad Gita Bai (P.W.-5), it is clear that fhey are mconsistent and there appears to be material oxmssions and coatradictions m the same. The possibility ofex^geratioa m their version cannot be niled out 8. AU these aspects have been diily coiisidercd by the Court below whUe arrivuig to a particular coaclusion of acquitting the accused/rcspondent. 8. I find no reason to interfere in the jiidgnient of acquittal particularly the view taken by the court below te one of tJhe possible view, It is a settted position of law m relation to c^ses agaiast acquittal, ia aa appeal agaiast acquittal if two views are possible on fhe basis ofthe evidence led by fhe prosecution and fhe trial Court takinig one view favoured ftie aecused^ reversion ^ of fhe findiags of acquittal by ffae appellate Court takmg fhe offaer possible view iato consideration is not percaissible in law, This Court is offhe view fhat fhe judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of fhe oflfence as aUeged is just aad proper, Accordiagly, fhe leave as sought for by fhe appUcan^t/State for registratioxi of appeal against fhe judgmient ofacquittal is hereby rcfused, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^