t—78 s^er '^ww<^, ®Ti1y'i<o,R<?ii<:fy ^ Wvff **^1<* "^ 200 aii^r qn Ri-fi* WI 3)1^1 sti*fro aii^?r 'fsv (4cit'l'*<{lr) WdTW ^lfeT 3]I^T HIOH COVRT CHHAmS&ARH AT BILA^DS dRJff.P.iro. 539/2007 SB: HON'BLd -WPUCANT/ ssvEa&a's BTOIt-APFLXCAHT SSSPOSSBffT V* -,1t. 28-11-2007 Shri Arun Sao, C Heard on admiss By tttis petition thls Court under Se Procedure for prefer] conviction and order in Sessions Trial No. Judge, Durg has con 498-AoftheIPCand 306 of IPC for abett coinmit suicide. <ftt<<i<rt<ftl 1TI*;Mf ^,1^(^ <^q^l< ^ srRpT ^i1^1 8HRI DHIREITOR& MI8HRA.J State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Uxaendram Yadav, aged about 37 years, S/o Hanuman Yadav, R/o VUlage Aiaileshwar, P.S. Kuinhari, District Durg (C.G.) tovt. Advocate for fhe appUcant/State. lon. |the applicant/State has sought leave of ^ptioTi 378(3) of the Codc of Crimmal efer^ing appeal again.st fhe judgnieut of c^f seuteace dated. 18th June 2007 passed 1|78/ 2006, whereby the leamed Sessions tncted fhe non-appUcant under Secdon 4cquitted hini pfthe charge under Section .bettjtng deceased (Vidya Bal), his wifc, to ;—78 lo'S'- Teq'^TPnc^, (SiTf1yi<o, Ricil'My *<Wrtl **<!* WI. 200 3^1 W f!;-li<tl TTS?T 3T1^?T St)*ilct» •€ R?' : |i ^- an^?T'o'ra; (lyf-jaitiiiT) t^nm ^IJOT SII^CT 2A Erom perusal of the trial Court consj cfrrl<?cT<lft71 •^P^f ^ffe%l <Rq<$K ^T 3JfOT 3TI^T the ixapugned judgmcat, it is seen that lering the dyiag declaration of the deceased Wdya Bai oftx.P-S, uiwhich she has stated that on fhe date of tacident th^re was a quarrel betmrecn her and the non-applicaat, as a re4ult of which~she poured kerosene aad committcd suicide aa4 that her husband tried to save her, conuicted fhe non-app^icant under Section 49S-A of the B>C. However, he has bSen. 306 ofthe IPC by the tr^al Coiut as pareuts offhe deceased did not support the case acquitted of the charge under Section 'pf the prosecution aud there was no evidence of aay past cr4elty against the accused. consldcration Taking into consldcration fhe reasons assiEsued bv fhe learned trial Court foi charge under Section 3| acquitdng fhe'non-applicant of the p6 of IPC, the sauie appear to be based on just and proper ap^i-eciation of fhe evidence available on r record. There is ao iplegaUty or mfirluity ia the itnpugned judgmeat which wai|rants interference by this Court. Accordingly, fhe uistanl disiaissed. c pedtion for grant of leave to appeal is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge m