. g : ‘ ‘ " Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. 28/2009 State of Chhattisgarh APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Rama Shrivas alias Ramnath Shri Praveen Das Dy. GA for the appeilant/State. None for the respondent. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 378 I3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL Kw; PROCEDURE. ORDER (21.07.2010) This petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.2008 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 75/2008 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge Vunder Section 306 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that merg (EX.P~1) was registered on 21 .1 .2008 to the effect that on the same day Smt. Anju Shrivas - wife of the respondent/accused died by hanging. Marriage of the deceased with respondent/accused was an inter caste one which was solemnized one year prior to 21.1.2008; the date on which there was some dispute between them over the preparation of food. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that on the basis of material l, collected by the prosecution. the Court below ought to have convicted the respondent/accused for the offence mentioned above but ignoring the same and thereby awarding» acquittal to the respondent, it has fallen in a grave legal erro. ( ' r @ -9... 5. Heard counsel for the applicant/state and perused the material available on record. 6. From the evidence of the witnesses available on record it is clear that number of neighbours of the respondent/accused have been examined by the prosecution but none of them has deposed anything against him. Even the lodger of the merg namely Kamlesh Shukla (PW-2) has not supported the case of the prosecution. Having gone through the statements of the witnesses this Court could not lay hand even on a single piece of evidence on the basis of which ingredients of abetment as defined under section 107 IPC could be attracted to the case in hand. 7. After going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting respondent/accused of the charge under Section 306 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal being without substance is liable to be rejected. lt is accordingly rejected and leave to appeal as prayed for is refused. Pritinker Diwaker - Judge Sdl—