,r l:> --" f q-t,v v'^c~^ ..^ c f/v IIS=iS=^!§!I5siSS9S?=^SS= :ftfi(Lai4iilw-s!3a-5B% 'r?<f ^ u^. Y^ . ^ ^ ' si"SIeBenclT(Crim!n^' ZEIE63S-S^-®S ] u> •? '5 ^fhw/aift^Nf ^w ^sS snw fws 31Lls&3S!fi ^ °s i»iSRirra qps fl(4i^-si<; aETfrqT,3^ 20 gra, y- • . ,= . - 2. '•fldi^'s we TWI g;:St 3ETftTrr,^i 55 HTW 3. BBt^nT^ TftT •fldl"Mii aertt;ETT,3^ 50 BT?I, arfr r'ldlrfl- yra iTrwpft- T^RT OTSIT STT^rpft- IT TTCST 1 ^ <-J ST^SR mtr T€t^-ft ^tFT -Nr w^ i^ wfe QTTT y7@^\ ti s'Ns^t ^ •Pi'fa % ft% srcrcrfti^ apft?? aRpfo tfT?T szsiii-sS. 1975 I h-t < / ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGA.RH AT aiUUBPItR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR CRJ^. N0. 19S1196 APPBLLAMT KEiSPOMDENT versys State ofChIiattissprfa G^esto. Ram & Othcrs SIui Ftaveen Das, Dy. Q.A. for thc State/appeBant. Shri Aaaat Bajpai, counsel fer fhe respoadente. APPUCATIOn OinDBR 8BCTION 378(3»& APKBAfc UITOBR SECriON 378(11 OP THE CStP.C. JUDOMBNT (14-01.2010) None for the respondents desplte of issuance of 8PC and bailabte warraat. 2. In fhe facts aad circumstanccs ofthe case, Sbri Anant Bajpal, Advocate who is one of thc lawyers in fhe panel of High Coiut Legal Serrice Coininittee is appoiated as counsel to represent the respondent No.l Gancsli Ram. 3. The present appeal is directed agaia.st tfae impiigned judgment dated 29.10.91 passcd by fhe Addiyoaal Sessioas Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No. 160/91 aCquitting the respoadents/accuscd for fhe ofeaccs pimishabte uader Sectibns 498-A & 306 of fhe Indian Ptenal Codc. During pendency of fhe pre^ent appeal respondent N0. 2 & 3 have expired and thercfore fhe piesent appeal coufines only to respondcnt N0.1. 4. As per.the prosccution case, oa flie basis of mc% inttmation -Ex.P/8 lodged by fee respondeat N0.2 •3SIi^sSt;i "s>»-.--<^'^' !-. '•S?^'^'' "•.s' '%--53^ Neelamber (since dead), fhe investigation was made aad ater cooducting fhe same FIR Bx.P/10 was Tegistcrcd on 9.5.90 agamst three accused persons. 5. Casc of fhe prosecution is fhat fhe inarriage of deceased Sushila Bai was a?leimuzed with respondent No. 1 Gaacsh Ram four years priqr to fhe date of iacident i.c. on 7.5.90 and it is aUeged that fiiom the date of marriage the deceased was subjected to cruelty by thc accused pcrsons as a result of which she consumcd sQine poisonoua substencc and died ia her niatrftaonjal honae. 6. So as to prove fhe guflt of fhc accused, paosecution has examined as inany as 12 witaesses. Stateaient of the accused were also recorded uadcr Section 313 Qr.P.C. ia which they dcxued fhe clvaige tevelcd against them and pleaded innocence and false implication ia fhe case. 7. By the unpugned judgiaent Ae ©ourtbelow acyutted afl the accused petsons for the ofifenees as aforetaentiDiicd. Hencc thc preseat appcal. 8. It has bcen ai^ued by the State couiusel that ffaere is enough evidence available on xccoid wanaatn^ the conviction of fhc solc sumval accused Ganesfa Raia. He subinits fhat P.W.-4 Mohaa Lal, ta-other offbe deceascd & P.W.-10 Jajdev fathcr of the deceased ha»e categork'aUy made aUcgation against the accused persons in respcct of t thc cruelly coininitted by fheiu with the dcccased. Ite sSso subii)fts ihat the deccased was subjected to cruelly to the ^ cxte'nt whcre she was teft IJB- no ofher option but to commit siiicide. SJ«»- 9. On the offaer hand, it 'baa beea veheanently atyued by Shri Anant Bajpai, counscl Bepresenting fhe rcspondent that the evideace'adduced by the prosecution is so weak wfaicfa caanot be iclied upon and thc acquittal of thc accused M f i^Bte., t stdctty ia acconlaace wiih. law. He further subaaits fhat fhe ingredients of Sections 498-A & 306 are naissing seaal therefore the Coiut below is fidfy justtBcd in acquitting tiie accused persons.. 10. P.W.-3 Shanti Bai, who waa oae of fcc independent witness has been declared hostile. P.W.-4 Moluan Lai brother of fhe deceased has stated Ctiat aU fhe accused pcrsons were residiag ni one housc aad fhey all used to deinand for one wooden filTniT-ah. He has steted that fhe said alinimh was not given to the deceased as it was not agreed to bc given before fhe laarriage. He bas ftirttier stated that wbjenever there uscd to be aay dispute between fte accused persons and Iiis sister, fhc accused persons used to demaad fhe said wooden ataurah. He bas further stated fhat when he saw fhe dead body of fhe dece^ed fhere were inarks of assault on thc ncek and iiiarks of tyiag the lcgs witfa rope. However, P.W.-ll Dr. S.B. Manglurkar has not supported hte version. Furthermore, thesc aUcgations asc taade for tfac first time in Court oaSy aad ftie saaac was not inadc in the diary stateiuent 11. P.W.-5 Shashl Bhushaa who is the Sarpanch of fhe viUage appears to be a hearsay witaess and has stated fhat Jaidev fa.fhcr of fhe deceased had infonaed him that tbie accused persons were-demandu^ woodcn alTniraTi. P.W.-6 Subash, Panch of fhe vfflage has ala? statcd like.P.'W.-l and he too, is a hearsay witncss. Anofber inu^ortant witness of fhe prcwecution namety Reshauilal (P.W.-9) had also.,not supported fhe prosecutton case aad Iias bcen declared hostile. P.W.-10 Jiadcv, father of fhc dcceased m his stateiaent has made certain allcgations agalnst the accused pereons aad he too has stated fhat the accused pea~s<ms were demanding woodcn almirah. Howevcr, fhis wttaess ^ adinits fhat fhe wooden almirah was already therc in the house ofthc accused persons. 12. From the statement of P.W.-10 Jaidcv, It appcars fhat he too had exq^crated ia fhe stateiaent before the court whfle making afflegation. In fhc Court slatenaent of the brother of fhe deceased, there is enough anpBovaaeut aid there are material contradictions and omissions. From readin^ the statement of fhese witaesses it wffl not be safe for fhis Court to convict the sole aiuvwing accused/respondent Thc brofticr ofthe deceascd had made aUegation against aU fhe accused persoas whcreas the father of the deceased has niade allegation onty against the husband and thus fhcir case becomes doubtful axid inconsistent Furfher fhese two witaesses have adinitted the fact fhat no attempt was inade to report thc matter m the poUce station or in the panchayat lueetiag. 13. Thus, after beariUg coimsel for tbc parties and considerit^ the material available on recoid as well as the elaboxate judgment impugned passed by the Gourt bdow, and beiag vciy inuch conscious of fhe esdstiag legal position fhat ia an appeal against acquittal if two views aie possible on fhe basis of the cvMlence Icd by the prosecation aad the ^^^^^^^^^^^falGourtteldngoneviewiavoured the accused, reversion ^ -rfthe fiadiags of acquittal by &e appeUate Court takirig thfi other possible vicw into consideratfon is tiot pcmussflile ia law, fhis Court is of the view that the judgmeat iaupugncd acquittiag fhe respondents/accused of the offence under Sfections 498-A & 306 of-fhe tadiaa Penal Code is jiist and . proper aad does nbtwaat any interference fey this Court. Accoidiagfy, fhc appeal beiag wifhout substance is hereby dismissed. Pritinker Biwakcr Jadge