^, ^ IN I®HIQS SOIJK3? ©PmmiA P&ADESH AS <M>BALFyRm [^^~ii7 ^ ^€&.E> ^7i9Sj CBaiNAL APEEAL N0< 1^.' J ^ ^ ^ '•:f ^' sxmiL&mi' SPGH£E Sf s" s- ^;'; TiE STATE QF M<P» -"9E&SUS-". '. • 1! : , ,.. ..- 1% E'&BEEB ®» W/0 &BI3UL MALIKH^ 50 lEARSo m ABDOl. MAUKH SA) XBBUIA Q^&mRI, 55 IBARSo 51ABDI3L SABBR RIJ^I S/0 ABDUI. MALIKH, 25 1EARS* AI<L RESIIBNT QF KHU&SHB^R, P€?LICB IGN $: (S&NTON&ENT S ©ISItElIC3(-DmGCMP)1 s&mm ApELiaasioM F0R iM% TQ AEEE&L OTIER SEGTIQ^ 57815J CR«P«C»/jg|^EEItI,i ^NEER.SEES'ICT 578111 GR«B»C'« .% 7~~1\v^ '^^/ 1. :.%at. t^, :Apgell;s»t'ii^.ts'.'tft, ^(^sfe 'tlie. <®rre@t: aad ^»11 <ldite'es$es @f tfee w^Mk.! are •^®;vander .$«• ^..< ^.'. ^•^ •ii^i ^yM- ^A^> u. ;;(t)::,:»^@e€'t«e''Wifte-^'..-l^^i2.'''^l.iN^. ,'a@&id,;at»ettt',.$0'-yeaps'tf-'.'l: l..<'/1'1 ..••'.^'~:;'-1^<'1'".'/..;'i''^ l'<2)^^l''«^^:'^^^!^^^;IQwto^:.^^^^ alboaf •S^^ears*-:- .•;":- ..'•/:.'': '•.; •:'.1;-'1.. \1'/''. ,^ . /'..'"'.. ''.'.•.. '. .. .-\. .- • .' ' -'.' .-..'. ..' '.' ;'. ^ ..•'•- . .' . '.• •• " :(j&@fti .^o:.:^@cto3?»3E^»'i^oae'; ^,.^.a€ka<2-t^: •:»aarte?,...,. .S®«:1^@^tepsti||^»':t«:S,,<^|eai%ent». :%3G?^:. <M»®1)«.;: A-t ;| >es®at,-r^siel&ig:-at .J^i€N3^,'R.oad».:iy®»iG^^Ktfcft" •'ti%vt;asm%^|K^^-.:WgitialEai»tfaaa».'(.a^ .<3)''^^\^ar;l'g^^;,^:l'^.^i3,l%alllch»:'.1.-^ ;la/@'^€tetartexk-SN»8§*^.:1'':.S»I^e-.Mllir@Bt::ot., '•".'l'/;'.11''.,': «os^ic'»:;2©ne\»<»».^:,^Kl»ii^l^ai^^;^S«:Cteft;t@affient,. -•'' : ^istt, ^INal; <M«1»):»:'.'1',..'.'.'.',.,'' ••;,1..:—.-,.;' ..•. ' l:1.', - •:1;, ^ •: ^' ., -. ^.^^^ ^^4. +^<e .annl tftatttm 1s te^KSfl/ £ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT B2LASPUR (Mon. Mr. Justjce Pritinker Diwalcer) CriininaS Appeal No. 78 of 1997 APPELLANT hia^- VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh Fareed and others Shri Vivek Sharma, P,L. for the State/apped^nt. Smt. Fouzfa Mirza, counset for the respondents. CRIMINALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 f3) OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (08.04.2011) The present appeal anses out of the judgment and order dated 21.08,1995 passed by Judicial Maglstrate First Class/ Durg/ in Crimjnal Case No, 2096/95 acqujtting the respondents of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, 2, Brief facts of the cas@ are that the marriage of the complainant Bibj Khatija was solemnized with respondent No.3 Abdul Saboor on 9th December, 1984 and it Is aWeged that she wassubjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the respondents, On 28.04.1987 FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged by the complalnant Bibi Khatija (PW-3) allegjng »n it that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents for demsnd of dowry. Based on this FIR, offence under Section 498-A of IPC was regjstered against the respondents and after jnvestiQation Cha/lan was filed on 25.05.1987 against them for the said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondents guitty, prosecution has examined 04 witnesses tn support of s case. /•^^ / .f t. -^- Statements of the accused/respondents were also recordect under section 313 of the Code of CrimjnaS Procedure in which they denied -the charges ievelled agatnst them and pleaded their snnocence and false implicatio.n jn the ca.se, 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court nas acquitted the accused/respondents of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC/ hence/ the present appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the part'ies and perused the matenai available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Contentlon of Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appeIlant/State rs that on the basls of materiaj collected by the prosecutjon, the Court below ought to have convlcted th@ accused/ respondents for the offence under sectton 498-A (^ IPC but jgnori.ng the same a.nd thereby awardlng acqvlttai to the respondents, it has fallen in a grave iegal error, He submjts that from' the very begjnning of her marriage the complajnant was subjected to cruelty by the respondents and therefore they ought to have been convlcted under section 498-A Of IPC. 7. On the other hand supporting the impugned judg.ment it has been arguecS by Smt. Mirza, Searned counsel for the respondents that after due appreciati.on of the evidence the Court below has acquitted the respondents and there is no perversity in the impugned judgment. She submits that in the FIR there is no specific ajlegation against the respondents for ctemand of dowry whereas in Court statement the complainanty his mother and father improving thelr verslon have stated that demand of T.V^ Scooter etc. were made fc?y the respondents. She submits that the 'Talaknama'' Ex. D-4 was executed on 25.04.1987 and • thsreafter the FIR. was lodged on 28.04.1987 just to harass the resDondents. .^ww^-., \ /"^i% ~x @ J .. :^y H^A^" "3- 8. The complainant Bibi Khatija (PW-3) and her father Abdul AJim (PW-1) and mother Rashida Begum (PW-2) have though made some allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty but their statements are se$f contradictor^ and from the same it js clear that while deposing in the Court they have improved their version. All the aspects have toeen duly considered by the Court beiow whlle passing the Impugned judgment of acquittaj and I find no iljegajjty and jnfirmjty in the same. 9. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing Isga? position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are posslble on the basis of evidence led by the prosecytion and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion ©fthe flnctings of acquitta! by the appellate Court taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permisstbSe in. law and therefore the judgment ' impugned acquitting accused/respondents of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any intQrference by thls Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is llable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge