^'%^^®I^"i;y';'' COURT FEES EXEMPTE0 !N0.9960/0-28/'0/XX1_ B/C^/OS'ASSPeCIFIED^SCTED^E T&i'OFTHECOURT FEES ACT 1070. ^m INTHEJIIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CR.M.P.NO. <5^ / 2( ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. APPLICANT/ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANTS 1. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate Distriet Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Rekhram, Aged about 31 years S/o Gainddlal, Premlal, Aged about 30 years, S/o Gaindlal, Both R/o Village Pahanda, P.S. Kumhari District Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION STSOfAND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378ffJ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 .-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BJLASPUR Sing!e Bench : Hon9ble Mr. Justlce Pritlnker Diwaker Cr.M.P.No.29of2009 APPUCANT State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS Accused Versus Rekhram and another li. v. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P L forthe State/appiicant. APPLSCATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDERSECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,J[8?3 Q_R_DE_R (23.11.2009) Heard on admisslon Present petltion is directed agalnst the Impugned judgment dated 21.05.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Durg In Crimina! Case No. 248/2006 vvhereby acquitted the respondents of the aiieged offence punishable under Sectlons 498-A and 306 of the indian Penai Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.07.2006 merg intlmation was iodged by Rekhram/accused that his wife Smt. ls4ona has committed suiclde by setting herseff ablaze. On the basls of that information, investlgation v-/as done and ultimat©lyFIR(Ex.P/11) was lodged against the accused persons alieglng in it that the deceased vvas subjected to cruelty bythe accused persons. 3. Counsei for the appilcant/State submits that the court below has committed a serious error in awarding acquittal to the respondenVaccused desplte there being sufficient materiai avaliabie on record calllng for hls conviction.' 4. !n support of Its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 wltnesses. One defence witness was a!so examlned. Statements of the respondentJaccused were also recorded under Sectlon 313 ofthe Code of Crimina! Procedure In which they have denied the charges ieveled against thern and pleaded their'innocence and faise Impiication in the case. ^^s^^ Rt}N?#@ilti.^ ^ 5. ! have heard counsej for the partles and perused the avaiiable on record. .6. From the statement of Satl Bai @ Saraswati Bai (RA/aa6), mother of the deceased it is ciear that In her court statement she has made allegation agalnst the accused persons for cruelty and demand of dowry but no such aliegation whatsoever has been made in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. She has mereiy aSSeged that the deceased was not conceiving, the accused persons used to pass taunt cn her. Likewise, Shivanand Yadav (PVV'-7) has made simliar statement in the court regarding cruelty and demand of dov^ry whereas no such statement has been made in respect of demand of dowrv? before the poiice in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Crimina! Procedure. ASmost simliar statement has been made by Mahendra Yadav (PW-8), uncle of the deceased. So far as the offence punlshable under section 306 is concemed, the prosecution has failed to bring any materia! that there was any abetment at any point of time by the accused persons. The entlre material has been duiy considered by the court beiow whl!e passsng the jmpugned judgment of acquittai. 7. After hearing counsei for the applicant and going through the evidence avaiSable on record and being very much conscious ofthe existing Segai position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence !ed by the prosecution and the tria! Court taking one vievv favourabie to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittai by the appeiiate Court taking the other possible view into conslderation, is not permissible in iaw, this Court is of the vlew that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Pena! Code, is just and proper and does not ca!i for any interference by this Court. 8. !n view of the above factuai and Segal position, ! do not find any reason to interference with the order impugned. 9. The petition fails and is accordingly djsmissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge .^ ^)