‘ 0 061535 1 \ K 3m y ”m [‘ , M/E‘’C’L 7‘LLAHT‘ mm “Sh ...£"C.‘/‘ . .j.....w...’ IMW x. mm... Nvml; ‘ Waki- KAE. MDmJICATION AWEAL Hm}: cmmmm; A A ‘ ‘ ' AND coma? 03" JUDI (“licnééiE I Kit/9 o?1‘y¢_ Ap‘mjAL mo. §3i§7 ___c»zr 1997 state of “Nddhya Pracxech thrcuga DistriCu “eg45 urcte’lagnandoaon (M 3 ‘vsr, : 1‘ Kules es? «3r a/o ‘ahr‘i ’s’haguwa tam, gs} ab ut 21 years; 2. iahaquwa /o shrl Dhanlklai area abbit :0 vews. :\ 3.~Vé1mba1 ,0 Yanbwl syo Shri F'hagua ac'ed about 35 yaarsg / All a£e by ccgte LodhL r/o Garwb 3kg in Thana, LhhulkhacEun Distrlci-n Rajnandaaon (\i 19 ) UL<2D2rzR SECTICM 378(iii) OF CR.P‘.C.FOR Lgyxm To CREMIN‘AL m “AL UNDER SECTION 378(13 OF 'CRvtzv.c.l_ y K HIGH COURT QF CRHATTI5$ARH AT BILASPlm , Single Bench z Hon'bie Mr. Ju5tice Prm‘nker DMakar‘ Criminai Appeqi Na £337 ef i997 5hr§ Vaibhav A. Govardhan, PL far fhe state/appeimm CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3?8 {3.) OF THE CGDE G? u - {:REMENAL #ikiié‘EtrURE. ! . ' JUDGEMEN? (04.05.2013) Thg prgsgn? apggg! arises QLJT 9f {fine judgmgni‘ and grdar‘ §dcrred 10,1199? gassed by Chiéf Judicml Mggistmta, 1‘ Khaimgarh, Disi‘r. Rajnandgaan in Criminai Case Na. 305/199? é‘acqui’n‘ing ‘ fhe respondems/accused far The n§§eged affemas punishable under- Secfions 498—A. and 5Gé af The Indian Penal A . ‘ \ ‘ x I 1 E Code. \ Brief fads of ';'he cusé are fhat The marriage of i 2. g compiainan‘t Kaii Bai was saiemnized with The responder” No. 1 ‘ Kuiesheshwar abou? ? years prior Ta 18.11995. On 18.7.1995 FIR. (EXP-1) was iodged by tampéninanf Kaii Bai (PW-1) alieging in H- ?hm The reSpandems Le. her husband Kulesheshwar‘ (appelkm? NM), fafher-m—iaw Mmguwa (appdianf No. 2) and mether-‘in¥'igw Yambaj (appeHam Na. 3) usezj m harass her‘ and usedm‘m make éemand of Rs.20,00Q/-. ET is Calieged fhcx’r the. resgendem's used m bem' her fer n0? bringing The suffideni' dcwry. Affer‘ im!esi'iga?ion The palice has figed challan on 9.8.1995 for fhe effence under Seaman 498% and 5Qé 9f The Endign Pem! Cede. Hawever, while framing ‘ i APPELLANT Sfm‘a cf Madhya ?mdz§h {new Chhat?isgar‘h) Versus RESPONDENTS Kuiesheshwar‘ & m‘hers. ¢harge, fhe csur‘f bzhw Ms framed i’he c'hear'ga unGer Sec?§ms 498-A, 323 gr 5% of T‘gzg inciign FemE Cade‘ 3. In. suppgr‘? m? fi'fs case, H13 presesméa‘n has examimgd as many as 13 witnesses Smmmems 0f The respgndenmx’aacused were aiso recar’ded undar‘ $ecz‘rigm 333 cf ifha {Sade (if Crimina§ §?recedur‘e in which may damied the char-gas §eve§3ed agains? them and piegdgd. the?!" imewme am? fmsa émahcmmn in fhg Case. 1 5 4.»! By Thg impggngd judgmgn? rdsganégm NQ. 3 hag wen cmvicwd fok Th3 affence :mcigr Sec’rizm 323 1%“. Hewever, presénf respwdamfslaccused haw beer: acquh‘Wd far ”£3145. cffences as memmned. abgva. Hence this appeaE. 5. Cuunsa! fer The S?a?e/nppe§§am‘ submiw'rs ‘fha‘? am the basis of evidence as adducad by ’rhg prwecm‘ésn, “me new“? below uugh? f0 have conv§£fed fha accused/resporzdems. 6. I have heard caunsei fur ‘ihe STQTey’appeiiant (md perused The moierig! avaimbie an recard‘ingiuding judgmgm im pugried. 7. Prosecuficn has examined Kai§ Bai (PW-i), fa’r'hgr' sf ma comphinan‘r Dammm (PW-2) & mmhar (3:? the campigmam‘? Rewm‘i Bgi (PW-3) and These. witnessa$ have made czHegmims agains‘t Tm respandema Fmm The readimg' 9f The evidance f? These wifnesses, i? appears fhcd They have exaggerated $heh" varsitms whi§e depgsing agains? ”me rgspcndems am them: am mm‘eriai ccn‘rmdicfid‘rigWn Their smmmgnfs; Krishna Kumar (PW-8}, Bisauha (PW—9}, Amer Singh (PW-1G), Bahemh (PW— * 12) and Jaujimm (FW-13) hays made an aftemp? m tjepgse againsf The reepeneem‘s but i? appears The? they are rm narra'é'ing Truth befar‘e the Cam? beiow. @ 8, Affer due apprecia‘rian sf fhe evidancz ava§§ab§e an recc‘rd; The Cour’r baiaw has awrived m a cgmiusEos that ‘ma prosecui‘ian has no’r been abia m prove ifs aasg be‘gaw a!3 Peasanqbie dcubfsfcrd therafgm The. rgspondenm avg emi?iad f9? acqui’tmi. 9': Affgr‘ hggring cgunsgg far The pgrifias and gging mmugh the. evidgncg. amiQGbig an recard and “aging. very much ccnsciaus 1‘“ fWc'vigws are nassEb!e an {rhg basis of irhe evidemg kid by ’{Tne pmsecmian and The iriai Cgur‘f mking Gas vizw avwmbk w +hz‘acsused,‘reversi§n cf The finding$ cf acqui‘?m§ by ‘g‘he appgékrre Ccur‘f taking ”me Mimi” passibig \iiaaw mm cansidemtmn, is m? permis$ibie in law, fh§s Caur‘f éS Q‘f #‘he. View firm? we judgmen? impugnad acquif‘ting ‘rhe respendenfs! accused of fhe gffencgs pun§$hgma uné’ar Sewmn 49g-A and 50$ cf fhe In§§cm Pam! Coda; is jug? and proper and d'aes my? caH far any mferference by fhi$ Couri «10. Fer ”me reasans aforemanf§anzd, $here is ma meri? in me nresgn‘r ca§g and mg same is dismgssed acgsrdézngw. // sal—mww Yr35‘“\‘et 3ué$e 0f ‘rhe. exisfmg izgql pasiticm ma“; ‘m a cg$e aggins‘? acqu§fm§ § 3‘