Criminal Appeal .No. State of Chhattisgarm ‘ ’ ‘ { VERSUS k 1. Sudheram aged about 32 yeara S/o Budhuva Ram L I a _ X: 2._ Tularam aged about 26 years S/o Budhuva Ram I i 3 Baora Bai aged about 46 yeaxs W/o Budhuva Ram. Khamaria, Police Station V g ' Champa, Chhattisgarh. Q t All reSidents ofvvillage Baradwar, District Janjgir- V Q ‘1 ‘ § ... w E HIGH COURT OF 'CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acg. Ap3. No. 132(2009 SB: Hon’ble Shr‘i Justice R.L. Janwar Ste of Chhattisgarh ta ~ Versus RESPONDENTS Ser udham and to w ot. hers / JUDGMENT 3 a .03.210 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judg'e ‘ *T Post t for Dronouncement of Judgmen h w 0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No. 132/2009 SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE UIS 378 {3l AND MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1l OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. Apgearance: Shri Suryakant Mishra, anel Lawyer for the appellant/ State. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered on}o.03.20 1 0) 1. The State/appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal dated 10.6.2004, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in Criminal Case No. 2280/2002, whereby the learned A.C.J.M. had acquitted the respondents of the charge under Sections 498-A, 328/34 of the IPC. 2. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondents by disbelieving the evidence of Kunwar Bai (PW—1), Karmat Bai (PW—2), Bathuram (PW-3) and Kari Bai (PW-4). P APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Sudherarn aged about 32 years S/o Budhuva Ram 2. Tullaram aged about 26 years S/o Budhuva Ram 3. Badra Bai aged about 46 years, W/o Budhuva Ram 3.. Brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant Kunvvar Bai and respondent Sudheram were in love, as a result of which, Kunwar Bai got pregnant, therefore, marriage of the complainant with the respondent was performed by Parmanand, Kalaram and Manharan. In the marriage, no dowry was given. After 6—7 months of the marriage, Sudheram, Tularam, brother-in-law (Jeth) and Badara bai, mother—in-law started ill—treatment with the complainant on account of demand of dowry. On the date of incident, i.e. 1.3.1996 at about, 9.00 a.m., all the three accused persons assaulted the complainant with hands, lists and assaulted with lathi and drove out her from the house, due to which, she fell down and received injury on her back. The matter was narrated to the father of complainant- Banthsahu, mother— Kari Bai, cousin brother —Sonsai and Karmatt Bai. After marriage, the complainant gave birth to a child, who died. It is also alleged that Sudheram wanted to remarry with some other woman, ‘therefore, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and drove out her from the house. Report Ex. P/ 1 was lodged on 2.3.1996 in the Police Station— Baradwar. Case was registered under Sections 498—A, 323 / 34 of the IPC and investigation took place. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, who framed charges under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of the IPC which was read over and. explained to the accused/respondents. The accused/respondents abjured the guilt and pleaded their innocence and false implication. 93 5. The learned .Magistrate after evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for respective parties, acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. Against the order of acquittal of the respondents, the State has filed this appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 7’ Learned counsel for the State/appellant argued that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents by disbelieving the statements of Kunwar Bai (PW-1),, Karmat Bai (PW—2), Banthuram (PW—3); Kari Bai (PW—4) and Kalaram (PW—5) Whereas evidence of those witnesses proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments and supported the judgment of acquittal of the respondents. 9. After perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is evident that it had disbelieved the statement of complainant — Kunwar Bai (PW—1) as she has not stated on what date she was assaulted by the respondent. She has also not stated about birth of the child, which was allegedly killed by the respondents and no report to this effect was lodged by her. There were many discrepancies in the statement of the complainant in Court and in the report EX. P/ 1 as also in the statement Ex. D/ 1 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. According to the complainant - Kunwar Bai, she sustained injuries due to assault by the respondents with lathi but Dr. J. Singh (PW-7), who examined the complainant, did not find any‘injiury on the body of the complainant, therefore, the lower Court has disbelieved the statement of the complainant. On perusal of the statement of Kunwar Bai, it revealed that she was happy in her matrimonial house for 5—6 months and thereafter, the respondents started demanding T.V., Cooler, vehicle etc; due to which, they assaulted the complainant, but, in her statement she has not stated any date or day as to when and how many times they assaulted her. In report Ex. P/ l, also the complainant has not mentioned any specific date or day. She has merely stated that her child was killed by the respondents by giving poison, but this fact has not been found place in F.I.R. and her statement Ex. D/1. 10. Karmat Bai (PW-2) has stated that Kunwar Bai is her grand daughter. Even then she has said that she did not know about the incident and thus, she has not supported the statement of Kunwar Bai. 11. Banthuram (PW-3), who is father of the complainant, has stated about the marriage and birth of the child, but has not stated about the cruelty or demand 0f dowry by the respondents, thus, he has also not supported the statement of Kunwar Bai. Kari Bai (PW—4), mother of the complainant has also not stated about the incident and driven out her daughter from matrimOnial house. According to her, when her daughter came to her house for the first time after marriage, a Panchayat was called and’after that the respondent took her daughter with him. But this fact has not been stated by Kunwar Bai (PW-1), Banthuram (PW-2) and Karibai (PW-3). Therefore, the evidence given by the prosecution is not reliable. Karibai has also not stated that why the Panchayat was called. She has stated that her daughter told her about dowry when her daughter lodged 12. the report after 3 months of the death of her son. In this way, this witness is also not able to speak about demand of dowry or assault by the respondents and has not supported the evidence of Kunwar Bai. 13. Sonsai (PW—8) has stated that the respondents driven out Kunwar Bai from their house then she went to her maternal house and reported the matter to the Police. He has not stated about demand of dowry or assault. In this way, it is clear that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the evidence of Kunwar Bai. Statement of Kunwar Bai itself is not reliable. Due to the contradictions in the statements given in the Court, in the F.I.R. and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the main point, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the abovementioned charges. l4. I have also considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal. The lawis also Well settled on this point that when two Views are possible from the same set of evidence and if it is found that the View taken by the trial Court is also possible, the scope of interference in such an appeal against acquittal is very limited and there cannot be any interference by this Court unless the findings recorded. by the trial Court are found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. 15. In the case of C. Antony Vs. KG. Raghavan Nair (AIR 2003 SC 182), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “6. This Court in a number of cases has held that though the appellate Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, still while exercising such an appellate power in a case of acquittal, the appellate Court, should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the Courts below in support of its order of acquittal, it must express its reasons in the judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. In those line of cases this Court has also held that the appellate Court must also bear in mind the fact that the Trial Court had the beneflt of seeing the witnesses in the witness—box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal, and in such cases if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate, Court should not disturb the finding of the trial Court. See Bhim Singh Rup Singh vs. State of Maharashtra (1 974 (3) SCC 762) and Dharamdeo Singh & Ors. Vs. The State ofBihar (1976 (1) SCC 610 ". Again in the case of Hem Raj vs. State ofPunjab (AIR 2003 SC 4259), the Supreme Court has held as under :- “It is well settled that if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonable possible and the trial Court takes the View in favour of the accused, the appellate Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal, unless it comes to the conclusion that the View taken by the trial Court was wholly unreasonable or perverse and it was not possible to take the View in favour of the accused on the basis of evidence on record’” 16. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and totality of the prosecution evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, I am of the View that the trial court has not committed any illegality in recording the findings of the acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of the IPC. The appeal being devoid of ‘ merits is liable to be and is accordingly dismissedtrv i z"’// Sdl- L.aha“‘"a‘ I Juég‘? R