\^^ [IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BBNCH HOiS'BLB MR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. R. L. JHANWAR. JJ. APPLICANT: CR.M.P. No. 133 OF 2011 State of Chhattisgarh Through fhe District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). VcrsUS NON-APPLICANT: Ravishankar Dewangan, S/o ChhedflaE Dewangan, Aged about 30 years, R/o Purani Basti Pratap Chowk, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District -Korba (C.G.j. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVB TO APPEAL TJNDBR SECTION 378 (3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 378 (11 OF CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURB. 1973. . Present-Shri Vmod Shrivastava, G.A. for the State/petitioner. Non-applicant/respondent not noticed. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 16/03/2011| The following order of fhe Coiirt was nassed bv T.] ''~\. 1. Present petition has been preferred after 136 days of its limitation. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01 appiication for condonation of delay in filing of petition. 3. On due consideration I.A. No. 01 is allowed. Delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned. 4. Heard on admission. iv .y" f » .»:& Bsi H.-* 5. This is a petition for leave to appeal under Sections 378 (3) and 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittat dated 21/7/2010 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 74/2008 whereby leamed Second Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) has acquitted the respondent under Sections 302 & 201 ofthe I.P.C. & Section 25 (1) (B) (b) ofArms Act. 6. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner/State submits that evidence of PW13 Dr. Anushri Mukhoupadhyay and her autopsy report and evidence of PW17 Shyam Si.mder Patel, Investigating Officer are sufilcient for drawing an mference that wife of respondent deceased Anita Dewangan died in fhe house of respondent as a result of bum injury and anti ,s mortem other injuries. Present respondent has not offered any explanation that how his wtfe died and fhat too tn his house in abnormal circumstances. In absence of any explanation on behalf of the present respondent only tnference woiild be possible that present respondent has committed culpable homicide amoi-inting to murder of his wife Anita Dewangan and concealing the evidence of crmiinal case. 7. Copy of the charge sheet, copy of the statement of the witnesses recoded in the Court and copy of the judgmeat impugned perused. M;? 8. As per evidence of aforesaid witnesses homicidal death df deceased Anita Dewangan has not been substantially disputed. As per evidence of other witnesses respondent was working in some place and he has used to go his oflice at 10.00 A.M. and has used to retum from his office at 6..00 P.M. Evidence took place at about 11.30 A.M. prosecution has not examined any witoness to establish ttie fact that after leaving the house for his ofiice present respondent has come back to his house or any person has seen the respondent near his house at the tune of incident or respondent was not present in his office at the time of such incident. Considering fhe aforesaid circumstances trial Court has acquitted the respondent by giving benefit of doubt. In absence of any evidence to connect fhe respondent in crtme in question ,s Court bekw has not committed any Ulegality therefbre we do not find any ground for grant of leave to appeal against fhe judgment of acquittal. Consequentty, petition is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge