S^w Bs; THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR CHHAmSG^ ^ ^w^^oP-W vtl State of Chhattisgarh '3 tyoApti^— Through : Police Station-Afealtara, Distt- Jaiijgir-Chainpa (C.G.) »..t"l-'9r::~. *-^: ^i.>^nte 2. 4.. Laxmi Naravaa S/o Ram Kuiuar Kahara Aged about 26 vears Ram Kuinar S/o Aaditya Kahara Aged about 48 years Gauri Bai W/o Ram. Kumar Kahara Aged about 43 years Satya Narayan. S/o Ram Kuinar Aged about 23 vears AUR/o Vfflage-Kikirda, P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt- Jau.jgir-Champa (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SBCTION 378(31 OF THB CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO FILE >• w^ HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS&ARH AT BILASPUR Sirgie Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritsntep biwaket' Cr.M.P. No. SSSof 2008 APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh co-Acwseo RESPQNOWTS Laxmi Narayai & others Shri Vaibhdv ©overdhan,P L for the State/qspei'ant. Smt. Rashmi Thakur, counsel forthe respondents. APPLICATIONUNDSl SECTION 378(3) OF TH6CODEOF ®IWNAI. PROCE&URE FCTl 6RANT OF LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL OR & ER (15.12.2009) Heardonadmission. The present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.7.1995 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrats, Sakti in Criminat Case No. 2853/2002 acquitting the respondents of the allegedoffences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the Iridian Penal Code. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 4.12.1999 a written complaint (Ex.P-1) was iodged by compiainant Kiran Katakwar, wifejof the accused/r'espondent No. 1 Laxmi Naroydn, aiiegmg in it that her marriage was solemnizedon 6.5.1998 and sufficient dowry was given in her rnarnage.It is further alleged ttiat immediately after fhe marriage, she was subjected to crueity because of demand gf dowr^ in particular Motor Gycle and Sewing Machine-and the accused persons used to say that quality of dowry item js inferior and they used to piass taunt. On the basis of this written repprt, F.I.R. (Ex.P-5) was lod^esd against the accused persons. 3. In supportof its case, the prosecution hasexamined dsmai'iy^ 9 witnesses. Statemente of the respondents/accused were j^lsb recorded under Section 313 of the Cpde.of Criminal Procedure invijl'ittch as w w they have denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implicdtion in the case. 4. Though the complainaht and other witnesses hwe partly supported the^case but from para28 ofthe Judgment, it cppears that the application was filed before the Gourt betow to the effect that the parties have compromised the matter and the couple is !ivin9 happily, howeyer, this application was rejected by tTie court below since the offence was not compoundabie. All the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material avaiiable on recor-d has been elaborately consider-ed by the courts below while ,acquittin9 the respondents/accused. Moreover, from the record it is also clear that the complainant is jiving hcppily with her husbnnd and in-laws. 5. After hearing counsel for theparties and going through the evidence ayailable on record aid being very much conscioys of the existing legal position that in a case against acquitta! if two views are possible on the basis of the eyidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one yiew favourable to the accused, reversion of +he findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possibie view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of !the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under Section under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is just ond proper and does not call for |ony interference by this Court. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the presen; case and tiie same is dismissed accordingly. S&-. ptlynl<£^ ^^fsf