IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTIS^RH '^ r-r-nf ^[ M. Cr. C. N0. ]t^ OF 200^ ^ Cr. A. No. OF 200' O '? ^,Q, IQ^J APPELLANT ^J RESPONDENT ^.l\P.l^-r—-*' ''^'.""•a^'s"-"^^ byShc ~-'-''\-T" ^<^ ^ •,<.*A-' "" »••-•*••**•" ' ; State of Chhattisgarh Through : P«S,AAalkharoda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS Pitambar S/o Deo Naraywi Aged about 51 years, R/o Village" Amondul, P.5. Maikharoda, Distt- Joinjgir-Champa (CG) l.toD.R.U) ^"^^FPLICATION FOk 6R^NT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3S AND MEMO OF APPEAL U/S 3780)^6? THE CObE OF GRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 TO ENHANCE THE SENTENCE ^•-t-^^-!-^-^ ^.-.:.^^r"-^-^^ ^\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B2LASPUR SB : HON>BLB MR. JUSTICB PKETINKBR DIWAKER CR.M.?^NQ.298/_a009 APPLiCANT StateofChhattisgarii Wersus :RBSPONDENT Pita3Ziber APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN'DgR SBCTION 3T813) AND MEMO Or APPBAL UNDER SECTION 378HI OF THB Cr.P.C. Appear.aELce: Shri Ajit Singli, P,L. for fhe appMcsiit^State. OR^-_ORDER (07.12.2G09J Heard on admission, Present petidoii ffled under Sectio.n 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C, is dii^cted against the impugned jiidgment dated 16.6.2005 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa m Cr.Case No. 1-749/96 whereby the accused/respondent has beexi acquitted of fhe charge leveled agaio.st him under Section 498-A offhe Indiapa. Penai Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.4. 1990 a written report (Ex. P-6) was lodged by coniplamaat Leelaniani (P.W.- 2) aUegiag in it that her miarriage was solemnized wifh fh.e respondent/accused sonietnne ia the year 1980-81 asid after niamage, the accused started living with her parents, It is atleged tliat as fhe couple could not Uve peacefiilly isi fhe house of the parents of fhe coniplamaat they left the said house and started Uvmg in viUage Amaiidula. On fhe basis ofth.is written report, FIR was registered on 14.5,90, 3. In siipport ofits case, fhe prosecution has exaiiadned as inaiiv as eight witaesses, Statement of th-e accused was '•h...^' J' •^^^w also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimmal Procediire ia which he denied fhe charges leveled against hun aad pleaded false inipUcation ia the case. 4, Contention of the counsel for the appUcant/State is ttiat on fhe basis of niaterial available on record, the court below ought to have convicted fhe accused/respondent. 5. Frora fhe stateinent of tihie conxplamant it is clear thiat present is a case where fhe inaniage wa% solemnized soinetiaie in fhe year 1980-81, fhe couple lived happily for about 4-5 years and fhen written report was lodged on 8.4.90. Froin fhe evidence it also appears that fhe accused perforaied second mamage aad fherefore tJie present coniplaint has been lodged. Statement of coiaplaiaant Leelaaiaai also inakes it clear tliat she has tded to improve in fhe court aad fhere are niaterial omissions and contradictions in her stateraent, P,W.-3 Laxmi Prasad has also stated fhat there was dispute between thein and efforts werc raade to have com.proniise between the parties. However, the accused/respondent performed second raardage aad therefore ftie report was lodged. In tfae statemeiit of fhis witaess also , fhere are material oirdssions anid contradictions. Froni tlie evidence of P.W.-l Tarachand, it appears that before the court below he has exaggerated ia his versioa aad there is laaterial omission and contoradiction in his stateraent also, Siaiilar statements have been given by P.W.-4 Goliram, P.W.-5 Gourishankar & P.W.-7 Badri Prasad. 6. Learaed court below has elaborately considered fhe entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution while ardviag to a particiilar conclusion of giviag benefit of doiibt to tfae accused/respondentwhile acquittmg hna. -3— t^, 7. It is settled legal positioix that ia a case ^ainst acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of fhe evidence led by the prosecution and Uie trlal Court taidng one view favoured the acczised, reversion of fhe findiiigs of acquittal by fhe appeUate Court taking the otlier possibie view iato consideration is not permissible ia law, this Court is of the view fhat the judgraent impugned acquittuig fhe respondent/accused offhe offences under Section 498-A of the IPC is just and proper. 8. I find no reason to iaterfere with fhe order impugned, In fhe result, the petition fails and is disnxissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge