San.n': '^ii £».* Singte IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Cvi.v. NO. ^ _LL^-TT^(^ ACOUirTAL APPEAL No^l]6, 2009- APPLICANT/ APPELLANT •pie ^•! ^_^'_1".___ _1 _^. 'y-05 NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Baldau Singh, S/o Dhanush Singh, Aged about 55 years R/o Chamari, P.S. Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3f^AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3781ItOF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MSSHRA; J. APPELLANT ITTAL APPEAL No.99 of 201 O StateofChhattisaarh. Saidau Singh. APPLICATION FOR OF LEAW TO APPEAL UIS 378 13} AND MEMORANDUM OF APFEAL U/S 378(1 S OF CGDE OF CRSSViiNAL PROCEDURE. 1973. Appearance: Shri .Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/aopeliant. Shri Vivek Sharma, eounsel for respondent. (21/01/20115 Folipwing oral order of the Court was passed by ion 378(1} ofCr.P.C. has been preferred by thejudgment ofacquittal passed bythe ondent from charges under Section 306 of This appeal under me prosecution to call in q .P.C. (2) Case of the prosecution, in nutshe!!, are that deceased Gayatri was married in the year 2000 with D'nesh S./o Baldau Singh (accused). She committed suicide on 19/09/2008 by hanging herself in her marital home. !n course of investigation the su'cide note Ex.P/2 was seized and frosT! the statement of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cf.P.C. it was round that the accused, belng the father-in-Iaw of the deceased, had an eye over the deceasea and was trying to oytrage her mbdesty by puliing her saree and her 'n-aHds at thetime when.she used to serve meals. On these allegations the prbsecution submlSed charge- s'neet against the accused for abating tt-ie deceased to commit suicide which is punishable under Section 306 of !.P C. (3) !n course of trial the prosecution exarnined Baldau Singh (father of \the deceased) as PW/1, Geetaba' (mother of the deceased) as PW/2, —2^- Jayantri Bai (elder sister of deceased) the deceased) as PW/4, Jethusingh as Krishna Kumar as PW/7, Jaisingh as S.R. Dhritlahre as PW/10. The defence as RA//3, Aruna Rajput (Nanad of Rft'/5, Dr. Sudesh Ratre as PW/6, FW18. Anand Masih as FW/9 and of the accused was that of denial. (4) Learned tria! Court after appreclating the evidence has recorded the finding that from the statement of witnssses and the contents of the suicide note Ex.P/2 the ingredient of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. has not been proved. (5) Record of the tria! Court is available and this Court has perused the record. The parents, sister and Nanad of the deceased who are . material witnesses for proving the charges have stated that the incidents of alleged molestation by the father-in-law was not informed to the Potice during merg inquiry. ff/V/1 Baldau Singh has not lodged any report after the commission of suicide by the deceased and the deceased did not inform this witness about the incidence and he came to know about the allegations made by the deceased against his father-in-law after 4-5 days of inci9a<it-when his daughter-in-law, PW/4 Aruna and his daughter Jayantri informed him. PW/3 Jayantri Bai has tumed hostile. In her cross-examination by the defence, after declarlng her as hostile, she has stated that the ailegation made by the deceased against her father-in-law wfe informed to the Police for the flrst time after 1% months from the date of suicide and that he never mentioned this incident to any other person even though she used to talk to her parents and brother on mobite every day. The aliegation made by the deceased against her Tather-in-law and threat of commission of suicide was such an impQrtant happening for the members of the Tamily Shat it is highly improbable that the said witness namely PW13 Jayantri would not have Informed the other members of the family. Thus, the f'nding recorded by the trial Court against the prosecution regarding its failure to prove mgredjentSQfthe offence under Spction 306 of I.P.C. does not appear to be perverse. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the suicide note Ex.P/2 supporting or corroborating the allegation made by She witnesses regarding the misbehaviour of the i father-in-iaw which might be a cause for the deceased to commit suicide. (6) In view of contradlction and .the delayed disclosure of the said incidence and the absence of such a!!egations in the suicide note, this .•^sa^: ~3- •& 1< Court does not find any good acauitta! by the trial Court. jround for interference with the judgment of (7) In view of the above, the instant appeal under Sectjon 378(1) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge