1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) cr.R.9?3 /05 ( NarmaHg ge a out Bai 34 W/o years Indra Village Kumar, —Saiha \ Malgi, P.S. Kunda, Tah- Pandaria, , Distt—Kawardha (C.G.) ERSUS ; : @) Bhara&Lal Chandravanshi S/o Vipat Ram Chandravanshi Aged about 34 years R/o Villa’ge Saiha Malgi Thana Kunda Dlstt- Kablrdham(C G) / @zw vg é“ Cw (KW /S 397/401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE A" W ‘ MAMCCé] > « f*"xt A—EW V _. V . . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISEARH AT BILA5PUR Single Bench : Hon‘bie Mr. Jus'i'ice Fri?m§(er Diwaker' Crimmai Revision No 573 ef 2695 APPLICANT Nirmaia Bai, We lndm Kumar Varsus RESPONDENT$ Bfaam’r Lai Chandravanshi and another. Shr’i Vimlesh Bajpai, caunsa! for fhg appiicam. of Shri Shri Qqjesh Dcs’nmff'n ?andey, F’r‘aja'pafia counsei Advacafe for The respondenf under T§3e Na. aufharify 1. Shri Vaéb’nav éaver’dhamg £3 L for ‘fhe S?a+e/r-esg§onden? Na 2. CRHHNAL §EVE$ION UNDE§ 5ECTION 3§W401 QF THE [ - .CGaBEM 53F CREMENAL ?§G€EDUE_E J 'U it} é M, E N 'F (29 . 07". 201 (E) Presen'r revisian ar§ses om m‘ fhe im pugned Judgmen? and crder dafed 313.2094 pasggd \by Q1 ef Judiciai Magisa‘m‘re, Kawardha in Criminai (Iase Nc‘ 9E2/2OG3 acqu'iffing fhe‘ respondent Na, l of The cffence under Semen 354 cf ”the Immn Pam! Code. 2. Brief fge‘rs 0f. The case are i‘ha? on 3.12.2001 FER. ¥ (EXP—1) was ledged by pmsecmrix (PW—1), married iady Q3!eging in i’r fha‘f when she had gene 1'0 The Hamer’ Mm of the accused/ respcndem‘ Ne. 1, he caughf heid af her and fook he!" insidé fhe Miil Wm"; an infemion fa Qan‘mge her modesfy. 3. So as Tc hoid E‘he aceusedi’resporsdenf N9. 1 guiify, - prcsecufion has exgmined as many as .7 wimesses in supeorf 9f. ifs case Stairemem‘ cf the accugedfrespcndem No. 1 was ciso 1 i i recorded under Secficn 313 c‘i we Code of Crim§m§ Procedure ; f I in which. he denied “me charge §eye§§ed ogamsf him and pieaded his inno‘cemce argd fake imeE§ca$§on m fhe case. 4. By The impugned judgmem ‘g‘he caurt bgiow has acquih‘ed fhe respondenf No. 1/accused of the offeme under Sec’rion 354 of i'he Imdian Penal Code. 5. Counse! fonfrhg Stamigppalam submii‘s ‘mQ‘? an fhg basis 9f evidgnca as aéducgd by the pmsecufign, Th3 saw“? below ought‘ro have. cenvécfad The accugadlrespcndenf No. 1. 6. On fhe oTher hcmd, suppcr‘fiag The. impugned judgmeni, i? has been argued by counsel for the respenden‘i No. 1 Thai 'ihe enfire evidence has been righ‘iiy appreciaied by the court below and The prosecui'r'ix appears i0 have faiseiy implicm’ed ‘ihe Pespcndeni No. 1. 7. Learned Siu‘ie counsel has assisfed The Court 8. Heard counsel for the poriies and perused ihe moierial available on record including ‘ihe judgmenl’ impugned. . 9. From The documen‘l’s as filed by bo’rh The counsei, iT is appareni fha‘i wife of respondeni No. 1 Suman had lodged a report against The husband of fhe applicam‘ for The commission of offence under Seciion 376 of ‘The Indian Pena! Code on 5.12.2001 whereas in The presenT case reporT was lodged on 3.12.2001 by The prosecuTrix (PW-1). From The sTaTemenT of The ProsecuTrix (PW-1), iT is ciear ThaT There are maTerial AA conTradicTions and omissions in The same and even she did noT make any aTTempT To save herself from The ciuTches of The accused/respondenT No. 11 IT is aiso apparenT from her sTaTemenT ThaT she has exaggerated her version while deposing before The CourT. Indra Kumar (PW—2) has sTaTed ThaT his wife ii had informed him abouT The offence buT he Too admiTs ThaT i There was previous dispuTe beTween The Two parTies. Ali These i l WV \ esteem . /% aspecfs have been duly considered by The cour’r 'beiow while passing The impugned judgmem‘ of acquh‘mi. 10. I find no reason ’ro infem‘er‘e in ‘l'he judgment of acquih‘ai pam‘iculariy The View iaken by The court below is one of the possible view. If is a se‘n‘ied Iegai posi‘iion ‘iho‘i in a case agains‘i acqui‘i‘iai if Two views are possible on The basis of The evidence led by 'ii'ie prosecu‘iion and “ihe Trioi Cour‘i Taking one View favourable ‘io fhe accused, reversion of fhe findings of acqui‘h‘ai by The appeiiai'e Coum‘ faking The other possibie view in‘io consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the View that the Judgment impugned acquitting‘the respondent No. 1/ accused of the offence under Section 354 of the Endian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present case and the same is dismissed accordingly. F Sdl- he; . pritinkér Diwaker Judge A D/- 'l