-^ / 1 ^o^ ^y 4M ~ '^ asssE^ GWeS.W.SttSSSA^.PaAEES&SS SSBAXSSt^ ys^___£/19^;-'- eRIKXBAI.AHBAI.MO, ;<a.-' yi9< WSESS.KXt u - ^ -Ci :^ ^WrtB"' '/^ -( cStSV^ M':wi». '^ ,-'~\ ; la SSA3EE ©Fa»P»TlEffi@85H POLIGE mwxess w^SK&s mssas.es· -BBRS0S- 1a V9WS IM.3/Q VQWS IAI, BAHJAR&, 3®YEARSa 2a(iaBAG:EaES&S/©M©BABIAI«,A®B5? rssss.,; ,, . .. , , ! „- S S&X&BKE B&I VlO K BWJARA, A®B32 , &^» BAMBAII S/@ LffiE BANJAB&»A^®D52 &H. RSIiaa W CH A»8 DISIRICT-* •r UUUIA& ^ EB6ssBss»e@a..a.sw&x©.^sisK&saaes.-^ssj£ss373(3) ®*P*G. gJBWJ.B&U &ai*K&&^BEUa!K^^^£B'E3.0H .3ya(.T?"GR«P»C^ . •^. ^s,^ wa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice PritinRer Diwaker) APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh. Yuvat Lal and others Shri Akhil Mishra Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri Anurag Shrivastava counsel for the respondents. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDERSECTSON 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (23.04.2010) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 14.5.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, ^nker in Criminai Case No. 109/1991 acquitting the respondenVaccused of the offence punishabie under Section 498-A IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the complainant Pappu Bal (PW-1) was sotemnized with therespondent No.1 herein sometime in the year 1986 and on 18.1.1991 she had lodged a written report alleging that immedigtely after her marriage the respondents used to subject her to cruelty. It is alleged that on 17.1.1991 she was even ousted by the respondents from her matrimonial home. Based on this written report FIR Ex. P-2 was registered against the respondents/accused. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused, prosecution has examined 04 wftnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of material coliected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondents/accused for the offence under section ''^^^- 498-A !PC but ignoring thesame and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondents, it has fallen in a grave legal error. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits fhat unless there is any perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below, no interference therewith should be made. 6. From the evidence of complainant Pappu Bai (PW-1), Kusna Bai (PW-2) and Abhimanyu Prasad (PW-3) it appears that there was some dispute between the complainant and the resppndents/accused and therefore possibiiity of exaggeration in her version cannot be ruled out. Moreover, Nakul Singh (PW-4) one of the independent witnesses has not supported the case of the 7. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence ied by the prosecution and the triat Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acqu|ttal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in taw and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents /accused of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordlngly dismissed. - sdl- pritinker Diwaker Judge