n"as ^^^/^S^S^^^i^^;^^ li;:;£-;: S^fenn;BwjiMSIBi BMBISS ••S'^.s^'^^^^;^^ IN T^E HIGH G0BRT^F .treBie&TTOB: KS • iT&BA&P^r CF0000062051 ^fM^ lUI^.J.i.^.-—. :- -^-Crlialaal '^ipeal 'HO* ^T?'s~^i/198[3| ' ''';...:':.;.':. Appellaat. s Sfcabe @£ H,.g. throagfa g.S. Pasan. :• •:..,-^/s- ^,.--,',^ :^.: •,,:..:::.;"'•;.: RespoHdBBtsf s ».. Bayaram s/o .anandram ageA abottt 48 years, r/o TillageiSlrailaa, S.S. Pasan, Bl.stt.BilaspUB* .aPPLIG&'EXOR ?@l EEftVB •EO aS'PE&L BiSBER SSCTE9B ,378C3) fSS ,<m.IMIH^'&8BE&& TOBSt^^^ .378<1) GR..g»C^j,&!@&ZNS^r^ kylrtii-iN-^ JBDGKEHT :<SF &ea@I'Eg*iSB-:fty -~- •* f ^—J^» d** ^ta:.^!'. 'SsS^SsSS.^ •^?st^'!^'^Fy!;^i''' „ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Sirwl®Bsneh : Hon'bl®Mr. Justiee Prltmker Diwaker' Criminai State of Madhya Pradesh Dayo.ram. son of Shri Rayindra A.grawa!, P.L. for the State/o.ppeliant, Shri ©autamKh saj, counset for the respondent. CRIrtINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION .378J:l)_OEJlit_CODE_OF CRZwIN4L_PR (09.07.2010) Present appeai arises out of the impugned judgmsnt and order dated 21.07.1998 passed by Judicia! Magistrate, First Class, Katghora In Criminai Case No. 72/1998 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indior! Pena! Code- Case of the prosecution In brief is that the complo.inant Shanti Bai @ SawGntibo.i was solemnized respondent/o.ccused 15-20 yeors back. It is aHeged that prior crueity by respondent. Roj V made on 4.6.1989 and based on that, F.I.R. (un-exhibited) regi-stered on 13.7-1989. So as to hoid the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses.in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent was aiso re-corded under Sectson 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he the charqe teveited aaainst w? him snd Dieaded innocence ond fojse impjication in the case. 5. By the impugned judgment the court beiow has acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian PenaS Code. 6: Counsel for the State/appellont submits that on the basis of evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the cour!- below ought to haye convicted thg accused/r'espondent. He submits that there is enoucjh materic! avaJicble on record warranting conviction of the re-spondent/accused. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by Shrl Khetrapai, counsel for the respondent that present appsars to be a case of false implicoition where provjsions of 5ection 498-A of the Indian Psnal Code are being misussd. He submits that admittediy, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the respondent about 15-20 years back and there js no eyidence on record to show that the complainant WGS subjected to cruelty. He submits that out of th®wediock the'y are hayirsg two issues and they were living happy married life but for minor differences. i-1eard counse! for the parf'ies and perused iable on record inciuding thejudgment impugnec 9. As per statemsnt of the complainont Shanti Bo.l @ Sawantibai, her mo.rriage was solemnized with the rsspondent 20 years ba.ck. She alleges that sinc®!ast 14 ysars, she was subjectsd to crueity by the respondent. Complainant admits that after 14 years of marriage she is living with her brother. The Rojnamcha entry and the F.I.R. have not been exhibited by the prosecution. The statements of the prosecution witnessss are ful! of contradiction and it wii! not be safe for v».^'ti :*&, \b this Court to of the compi /ict the respondent on the basis of statement •, moreover, after due appreciation of the jrt' be!ow has arrived to a part'iculo.r conctusion of acquitting the respondent. 10. I find no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittai part'icularly the view taken by the couri' below is one of the possibte view. It is a settled legai position that in a case against acquittal if two yiews are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view fayourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appetla.te Court taking the other possibjs view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the Judgment impugned acquitting the respondsnt/ accused of the offence under Section 498-.A of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not ca!l for any interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons oforementioned, there is no merit in the present case and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pritinker Diwaker Judge