GD u.x‘‘ Sémé'a Q. IN THE HIGH CWRT OF GIHAT‘I‘ISGAm AT BILASPUR C.G. CRIMINAL REV: SION No. géH /2005 / 1 APPLICANT :- Smt. Shama Begum w/o Gulam Mohiyuddin ‘ alias Gulamu. aged about 2’3 years, R/o village. Karoundamuda. P.S. Bhaiyathan. Tab. Surajpur, Disttt w Surguja (C.G.) . ‘ VER$JS ‘r /V N-APPLICANTS :- 1) . State of Chhattisgarh /..--< Through— S.H.O. " ‘ av" 631% f , Police . Station Patna L .. Dlstrict Korea (C.G.) . mod gv Agc’ggm ‘ 2) Gulam Mohiyuddin @ Gulamu S/o Abdul Rajjak, ageé about 21 years ( 27 years) R/o vill. Sarnapara, P.S. Patna, District Korea (C.G.) . /‘/ REVISION PETITION U/S 397 AND 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEHIRE GBDE O a/ m W @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No. 391 of 2005. APPLICANT Smt. Shama Begum. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another. x r Smt. Meena Shashtri counsel for applicant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for respondent No.1/State. "t? CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE . OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. a ORDER (29.01.2010) Heard on admission. 2. The instant revision petition s directed against the impugned judgment dated 5.7.2005 passed by the Judiciai Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur’,”District Korea in Criminai Case No. 312/2003 acquitting the respondent No.2/accused’of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.8.2003 FIR (Ex. P-1) was , lodge by the applicant (PW-1) alleging that her marriage with the respo. dent No.2 was solemnized in the year 2002 and 2—3 months thereafter she was started to be subjected to harassment by her husband for demand of dowry. She has alleged that the respondent No.2/accused used to demand Rs. 10-20 thousand from her and due to non—fulfillment of the demand she was brutally beaten by him. 4. in o der to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused the pfosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of its case. ‘ Statement of the respondent No.2/accused was also recorded under ’ Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. i @ _2_ 5. After hearing the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondent No.2/accused of the charges levelled against him. Hence this revision. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of the applicant herein (PW-1) is so clear that based on that only one W Q, conclusion can be drawn that she was subjected to cruelty by her ‘ husband'for demand of dowry. She submits that looking to the manner in which the applicant'was beaten by her husband demanding dowry, he ought to have been conVIcted under sections 498 A and 323 IPC and therefore the Judgment Impugned awarding >14 acquittal to him being illegal and unjustified is liable to be set aSIde According to herrthe statement of the applicant (PW-1) is duly supported by her mother Hajra Begum (PW-2) her father Habibullah (PW 7) and other independent Witnesses namely Farjul (PW—3) Mohd BaSir (PW-4) Sohrat Ali (PW—5) Sallauddin (PW 6) and Mahmood (PW-9). 7. Counsel forthe respondent No.1/State assisted the Court. 8. Perusal of the statements of applicant (PW-1), her mother Hajra Begum (PW-2), her father Habibullah (PW-7) and other independent witnesses namely Farjul (PW—3), Mohd. Basir (PW-4), Sohrat Ali (PW-5), Sallauddin (PW-6) and Mahmood (PW-9), makes M it clear that the complaint was filed by the applicant after the alleged divorce given by the respondent No.2/accused. Prosecution has heavily relied on the letter allegedly written by respondent No.2/accused which has been seized by the prosecution under Ex. it P 3 This letter however has not been proved by the prosecution \' that it was written by the respondent No 2/accused Though certain “Witnesses of the Anjuman Committee have been examined by the prosecution, they have categorically admitted that in the said ommittee proceedings are initiated only after receiving the written application and the entries of those proceedings are made in the register maintained by it However in this case it is not disputed that no such register or document has been brought on record by thel 1 ‘ @ -gH prosecution. Some of the witnesses have admitted the fact that no demand whatsoever was made by the respondent No.2/accused. From the record it also appears that the dispute arose between the parties as the divorce is alleged to have been given by the respondent No.2/accused. 10. After going through the materiai availabie on record and being very much conscious of the existing Iegal position that in a revision against acquittai if two views are possible on the basis of‘the evidence Ied by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of thefindings of acquittai by the revisionai Court taking V the othér possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the‘judgment impugned acquitting the respondents No.2/accused of the offences under Section 498-A and 323 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. m/,,/$dl_ V t // VD" aker I, / pritinke