IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR; CHHATTISGARH M.C.R.C. ^OF/200^-c^-^-^^) \^ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. e^\"^y ^•0'". M- ^^•".f a3- .^ Aopellant .Affpiicant ,A® .»^'*' t.l] :^. rDondents Non-Applicants OF 200^ State of Chhattisgarh Throuah; Station House Offlcer. P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir VERSUS fewe-fl'ffi 1. Ramlochan @@arasram) A ^wT,^s/o^^sramliwa"7 Aged about 31years 2. Ramsanehi S/o Ramcharan @ Anand Tiwari, aged about 32 Yrs 3. Ramcharan @ Anand Tiwari, S/o Ramprasad Tiwari, aged about 67 Yrs 4. Motibai W/o Anandram Tiwari, aged about 65 Yrs /' 5. Dilip Kumar S/o Ramcharan Tiwari Aged abayt 22 Yrs 6. Ramgopal S/o Anan&ram Tiwari, aged about 35 Yrs 7. Manoj Kumar S/o 8. ^^ Ramcharan @ Anandram '' SAXr^ Tiwari, aged aboutf28)Yrs Vi Nageshwari S/o i Ramcharan Tiwari @ Anandram Tiwari, aged about 18 years t (All residents ofVill. Kutighat P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. Janjglr- Champa (Chhattisgarh) 'APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAI, UNDER SECTION 378f3rAND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378fir6F CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. s ^•^.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. 522/2010 APPLICANT StateofChhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS Ramlochan @ Paratran and others Shri Praveen Das Dy. GA for the applicanVState. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE GODE OF CRIJViLNAL PRQCEDURE. ORDER (04.08.2010) Heard on admission. The present petition filed under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, in Criminal Case No. 198/2002 acquitting the accused/respondents of fhe charges under Sections 498-A, 342 and 506-B of IPC. : 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.1998 FIR (Ex.P-3/A was lodged by the complainant Vedmati, wife of Ramlochan (respondent No.1) alleging in it that she was married with respondent No.1 and aftet; few months of her marriage she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the respondents. After investigation c/7a//anwas filed on 28.12.1998 against the respondents and accordingly they were prosecuted by the trial Court. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accysed persons were atso recorded under section 313 of the Code of Crimina) Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleadedtheirinnocenceandfalseimplicationinthecase. | 4 By the impugned judgment the Court below has acquitted the respondents of the offence as mentiojied above. Hence, the present petition. •'1^?^—^..—-.' - &"~ : 1 5. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that on the basis ot material collected by the prosecution, the Court below oughtto hav( convicted the respondents for the offences mentioned above but ignoring thesame and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondent, it has falleri in a grave legal error. He submits that the evidence has been completely overlooked by the Court below while passingthe impugnedorder. 6. Heard counsel for the applicanVstate and perused the materia] available on record. | 7. Unfortunately, thecomplainantVedmati Bai could not be examinecj in the Court as after lodging the report she died in her parent's house^ Respondent No.1 is husband, Ramcharan @ Anand Tiwari (Respondent No.3) is father-in-law, Motibai (Respondent No.4) is mother-in-lawj Ramsanehi (Respondent No.2), Dilip Kumar (Respondent No.5)J Ramgopal (Respondent No.6), Manoj Kumar (Respondent No.7) and Nageshwari (Respondent No.8) are the brothers-in-law of the complainant/deceased. From the evidence of the witnesses it is apparent that there are material contradictions andomissions in the same. It appears that Harihar Prasad (PW-3) - brother of the complainant has though made same allegation of erueltyagainst the respondents but he also admits that for about three years after her marriage there was nd complaint made by the complainant and at the eve of Tizafestival wheil he had gone to his sister's in laws house to take her the respondents had not sent her with him. However, even on that occasion the complainant/deceased had not made any allegation against th6 respondents. From the evidence it also reflects that there was some monetary transaction between respondent No.1 and father of the deceased Radhelal (PW-5). It isalso clear that some legal notices were also exchanged between the parties on account of the dispute of Rs.50,000 which was given by respondent No.1 to his father-in-law'(PW- 5). The independent witnesses namely Chhoti Bai (PW-2), Ram Baj (PW-6) and Liladhar (PW-7) have not supported the prosecution case.| All these aspects have been duly considered by the Court below white passing the impugnedjudgmentofacquittal. | •"'«»'•: ^^^J ' 'l'% ^^^^':^ aai- SlE;i-((fefc' -^3" ' • • , ' 8. After going through the material available on record and being ver much consciousof the existing legal position that in an appeal agains^ acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by th< prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, t Court is of fhe considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acqujttal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view intci consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting accused/respondents ofthe charges under Sectionq 498-A, 342 and 506-B of IPC, is just and proper and does notwarrant any' interference by this Court. Accordingly.the application seeking leave td appeal being without substance is liable to be rejected. It is accordingiy rejected and leave to appeal as prayed for is refused. Sd/- pritinker^aker judge aes.i: ^^