A (Y V N T' 1:; 11l<aii CCU?“ OF L AD ’YA PQAD SI “T J‘hBALPUR. / ‘ _ mmivswm ugmirg; Q , V 1 1 \mame mum Imunummmm I, v r 00060935 APPELEANT ‘ " ;‘ State of mp. through P.¥;.‘p"soure,plzs§ '- , algarh. ' - HHS IS-= f 7 ‘L ‘ .T .ESDQLmm‘Tr‘s WM usheéi/I’umar s/o Jadavo aGeQ 3’4 yrs. v . I‘docwr’ . mall%upta D/o Jadavo Gubpc aged a0“ ' 3 fCbnaS L s/o Jac‘iavo f‘upta, Lged 2v? yr§. 4, .mrendrar Kumar 5/0 iadévo, aced 20 yré 5 Jaf‘avo‘ 3/0 I‘Iai'ladeo 6min, 9aeJ 55 yrs E/Qngaoal ”/0 Lall’” furawl S/o JarVavo §upta, gated 45 yrs. 8 6/ Lrlnuruaal ged 75 Veu‘ Widow o£ ahadee gm: Gunga ‘ VWlasanJ. D/w Jaclavo Gupta aged 2" yrso ; a, arved 46 frs. ~ ‘ ‘ 9 /o VwllaJe Cam ncn, ’I‘nana Pugore, n Dr‘tt; “alaarn (r ).</* I/ KwLIc‘xTmn FOR L29 To X‘m XL. mm a bv‘crvlc 378(3)/ / ’ ' crimlndi Aqp-ai Un§er Section §78Z13 OF “R..- .C. ‘ I W t El 2 ‘ L " leg _ a SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R.L. J’hanwar APPELLANT State of MP. (Now C,G.} through RS. Pusors, District Raigarh. A RESPONDENT Versus Sushegl Kumax S10 Jadavo ags& 34 yeaxs R/o village Chhinch, Thama Pusorc, Tah. 8a District Raigarh (MP) (Now CG) Appearance: Shn‘ Arvind Shukla, Panel Lawyer for The State/ appellant. Smt. Indira Tripathi, counsel for the respondent. J U D G M E N T (Delivered on “032010) 1. The appellant] State has preferred this appeal against the judgment axld fmding of the J.M.F.C., Raigarh, passed in Criminal Case No. 59/ 1994, whereby, the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Sections 323 and 498—A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence. It has disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and also acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. o. The$prosecution case in brief is that the complainant —~ Pankajani Kolta was married to Susheel Kumar in the year 1990 and she was living with her husband and in-laws. The allegations f) HIGH COURT oar CHHATTiseARH AT BILAsPUR er. App. No.118w1996 ars that shs was being tortured by her brother-in-law (Jeth) - Lalit Kumar, husband- Susheel Kumar, famer-in-law— Jadavo, bfOtllers— in—law (Devar) —Subhash and Surendra, mother-in-law— Surbali, grandmotha—in—law- Tn'purabai, sister-in~1aw(dcthani)- Gangabai and sister-in-lavv (Nanad)~Bi1asinibai on accomt of bringing less dowry. Théy used to abuse and beat her. When father of the complainant namely Gandarai Gupta came to gram Chhinch, the accused persons forcibly removed the golden omaments/jewellary of the complainant and send her to her parental house, Where she lived for 3 years. Thereafter, 4 months prior to the date of incident, when the complainant was in her matrimonial house, a \ Panchayat was convened at gram. Amiapali. The incident took place on 5.4.1994. Husband of the complainant Susheel Kumar and brother—in—law (Jeth) Lalit Kumar abused and beat her and told her to leave the house. On the date of incident, the .complainant was suffering from fever, due to which, she was not able to do work and eat food. According to the complainant, her mother—in—law, sister-in-law (Jethani) and brother-in—law (Jeth) poured kerosene oil on her body and tried to set her on fire, but the complainant anyhow escaped and saved herself. While the complainant was trying to save herself, fire [caught in the paddy, which was kept in the room. The complainant immediately rushed to Police Station-Pusore and reported the matter. Thereafter, she was examined by the Doctor and investigation started. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 of the Cr.P.C. Spot map was prepared. 4. After completion of the invesn'gation, charge sheet was med before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, who framed charges under Sections 323 and 498—A of thelPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the'accused persons and conducted the trial. After affording opportunity of hearing to the partics, the learned J.M.F.C. acquittad the respondents of all the charges framed against them, The appellant/State has preferred this appeal 011 the following grounds: i. The learned lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecutien. 11 ‘ 1t has also disbeEieved the evidence of the compiainemt and other prosecution Wimesses. On the ih'msy ground, it has acquitted the respondent. b. I have heard learned couasel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the trial Court. 6. Complainant ~Pankajani Bai (PW—1) has deposed in her statement that after marriage when she went to her matrimonial house, accused persons harassed her for bringing less dowry and they did not give her proper meals and used to abuse her. When her father came to take her, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law {Jethani) forcibly removed her golden ornamentsfjewellaly. She came to her father’s house and remained there for 3 years. A Panchayat was convened and compromise took place. As per the compromise, she went to her matrimonial house, but her in-laws did not treat her properly. She has further deposed that when she was eating food (chila roti), her husband assaulted her at the instance of his brother and her sister-in-law (Jethani) poured kerosene oil on her body and tried to set her on fire She pushed them and ran away. During the scuhle, the paddy kept there caught fire. Immediately after the incident, she went to Police Station Pusore and lodged report Ex. P/ 1. She has also stated that while rushing to the Police Station, she fell down in the way. After lodging the report, she was medically examined. She has stated in her cross—examination that all the accused persons had gone to work in the new building, which was under construction. She has f denied that she put 1ire on the paddy. She hae also stated that in her caste, no dowry is given at the time of marriage and accordingly there waS<no agreement about giving dowry in her maniage. It is evident from her statement that kerosene oil was poured and the respondent/accused tded to set her on hre. Pandimaram Gupta (PW~4), Gandarai (PW-5) and Shashi (PW—9) have also stated that the complainant -Pankajani Bai told them about pouring of kerosene oil and tried to burn her. 7. However, in this regard, Dr. RN. Mandavi (PW—7) has nowhere stated in his statement that during medical examination, smell of kerosene oil was found on the person of the complainant or there was any smell of kerosene oil on her worn sari/clothes. During investigation, Police also did not seize her cloth/ sari smeared with kerosene oil. Thus, the statement of this witness is doubtful that she was tried to be burnt. 8. Arvind Kumar (PW-2), who is the Vice President of Kolta Samaj has deposed that the complainant usually had dispute with her husband and in this regard, a Panchayat was convened and Ex. P/2 (compromise/ shartnama) was written in the Panchayat. He has also nowhere deposed that any matter of dowry was rose before them neither it has been mentioned in Ex. P/2. If after marriage and before the incident, she was harassed for dowry, it might have been mentioned in EX. P/ 2. 9. Rakshpal (PW—3) has deposed that the complainant told him about pouring of kerosene oil and burning her, thereaner, he went to Police Station. However, complainant Pankajani Bai {PW- l) has not stated that her father Rakshpal (PW-3) came to the Police Stauon and took her back. Under these circumstances, his statement is doubtful. \. \\ 10. h. is evident from the statement of the complainant that shE was tried to be burnt by pouring kerosene oik and she reported the matter to Police station and also to her relatives, but Police have not seized any cloth] saii and medical evidence is not about the smell of kerosene oil. Thus, on this point all the Witnesses and the complainant co’iild not be relied upon. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, in this regard, EXP/2 was written in the Panchayat‘and nothing was stated about dowry. If it was actually told, Arvind Kumar (PW—2) should have clearly mentioned about it. Under such circumstances, when the complainant herself has affirmed that no dowry is taken in their caste, the point rose by the complainant about dowry becomes doubtful. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of dowry by the accused nor it has been able to prove about harassment] assault for dowry, therefore, the lower Court after appreciation of the evidence acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 323 and 498—A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. In an appeal against acquittal if two views on the prosecution evidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one view favourable to the accused persons, then it will not be permissible for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other possible view on the prosecution evidence. l2. For the foregoing reasons, I do not hnd any such infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal, which may warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal. 13. The appeal tiled by the appellant] State against the acquittal of respondent]accused-Susheel Kumar, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge