&1 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT ^ ^ASUlTmLAI>PEftL'[-BILASPUR »- g^^(^M^fPW_ OSfP w- ^ %M^^&[^NO. ^ /200J APPLICANT COMPLAINANT ('AGAINST ACOUITTAL^- Smt Susheela Bar, aged'about 30 years, wife of Shri Ramlal Sidar, R/o. Vill - Salihari, P.S. Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh-(C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS 1. ACCUSED ^friAL^ ^?- •9<t' Versus Ram PrasadSidar, aged about38 years, sdn of Shri Prem Singh Sidar R/o. ViU. Salihari, P.S. Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh(CGr.) ^v 2. The State ofChhattisgarh, through the lp_ District Magistrate, Distt. Raigarh <qpff£^i(' (C-G-) a . M-*ftl tkUCj-ttdAUtW Uf^ 373C^) o P Cfc.Pa- IMt.' _ " ':. ^ A'^-''"'' ^ ^f- ^^ftSWTTfli. ^PPE^tC «»B»ffi^^^B^st^*BN^%-see^^rf^&TU^aE<SECH0N^ei ^P^ISK^SSsS^&fftQ^BtfftS-eQS&s-WK^ wvf HI6H CQURT OF CHHAmSSAftH AT BILASPU! Cw Tj^^g^g"*, Cr.M.P. N0. 4S5 /2009 Smt. Susheeic Bai ,am Prasad Si & cnother I'^-h.o^ ACOLaTrAi._4?_PIAL,UNI>ESSECTION 378 (4) OF THE CO&i IOCE6URE Shri Roop Ncik, counset for the applicant. Shri Proyeen t)cs, G.A. for ths Stcte/non-cppiicant No. 2. . OR D ER (12.11.2009) l-1eard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2008 passed by Judiciat Magistf-ate, First Closs, (Sharghora, Distt. Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 305/1996 whereby the accused/respondent No.l has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IndianPenal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.8.1995 a compiaint was fiied by compiainant Smt. Susheela Bai (PVi/'-i) alleging in it that her mo.rr'wge was performed with ftam.'a! -2-— but the rumor has been spread in the village that the complainont practicss witchcraft, is a characterless lady and 1+ie woman of easy virtue. It is further aileged that the accused had spread the news that he is the fathep of the daughter of the complainant, this act of the accused is as such comes within the purview of Section 500 of the Indian Penci 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses including that of ths compiainant. Statement of the accused/respondent No.l was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Pr'ocedure in which hs has dsnied the charges ieveled against him and pieaded falss implication in the ccse. 4. In her statement, the complainant Smt. Susheslc Bai (PW-1) has categorically admitted the fact t'nat even after ths rumors spread by the occused, she is enjoying the same respect in the viliage and the behwiour of the villagers towards her is the same as it was. She has further stoted that whan the accused had uttered cer'tcin words, no other person wos present except her and the accused. She has further stated that about •ttie paternity of her child, she has never informed hsr husband nor 1+ie said issue was ever discussed in his famiiy. Ramla! (PW-4), husband of the compiainant, hcs stated that he was defamed and the incident was witnessed by Kumar Singh (PW-2), Nehru Sohra (PW-3) and Ram Lat (PW-4), further these witnesses have stated that about 13-t4 years prior, there was some dispute between complainant Smt. Susheela Bai (PW-1) and the accused. The statement of these -3- Vifitnesses makes it very clear that ingredients of Section of the IPC are not attrac+ed. 5 Thus, after hearing counsei for tiie parties considering the material available on record as well as the elaborcte judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an oppea! against acquittal if two views are possible on +he basis of the.gvidence ied by the prosecution and the tr'ial Court taklng one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquiti-al by the (ypeliate Court taking the other possibie yiew in+o consideration is not permissible in Scw, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned ccquitting the respondent/accused of the offences under Section under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, is just cmd proper and does not cai! for any interference by thiS Court. 6. In view of the above factual and legal position,.! do not find wiy reason +o intsrfere with the order impugned. 7. The petition faiis and is according'y dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Jmtge