HK3H GOURTOFCHI-WTTISaARH: BILASPUR DIVSION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRIT.P.SHARWIAiWD tiON'BLE SHRIR.L.JHANWAR. JJ. APPUCANT RESPONDENTS ACCUSED PROSECUTION CriminalRevisfonNo.192 0(2088 Aijun Prasarf Gupta, s/0 Lata Mahssh Sao, Aged about 53 ysare, R/o VIIIage & Post-Japla, P.S. Husainahad, Disbn'ct Palamu (JHARKHAND) VERSUS 1. Munna @ Mona Praaad Gupta, Sto Aijun PraMd Gupta, aged24yeara. 2. Chinta Bai, W/o Aqun Prasad, agnd 41 years. 3. Arjun Prasad Guf^a, Sto Jeetprasad Gupta, aged 45 years. All residents of Sakinar Yadav Nagar, Tifra, P.S. Civil Une, Bilaspur, Tah & Didrict-Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. State of ChhatB^arti, through its Pojtce StaBonCwil Line, Dist. Bittspur ^e.G.) MEMO OF RBflSION AGAINSTACUn-TAL UNDBR SECTIOMS9T RBM» WTTH SECTIOIi4010FTHECODEOFCRIMINAl.PRO)effi(XI Appearance: Shri Y. C. Sharma with Mre. M. Asha, cminsel forfte petitionar, Shri UUam Pandey, counsel for respondents No.lto 3. Shri J.A. Lohani, P.L. for theStata/respomtentNo.4. ORAL ORDER ff'assedon2l.062Q11) Per T.P^hanna. J. By this reviston, the applicant has chaltenged the togality, vatldity and propriety of the judgment of acquittat datecl 21.12.2005 pasaad by the 1 Additionat Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in SessionsCase No. MQ006 whereby and whereunder the teamed AddlUonal Sessions Jue^e has f»quitted respondentsNo.1 to 3 i.e. husband, fatherandmother of ttiedeeeasedaf the charges under SecUon 498A, 304B and in the altemartive under S»cU<m306 I.P.C. on the ground that prosecution has faited to prove te casa Ueyond sN shadow of doubt. Ifdfe^^ 2. As per the case of prosecutton, respondent No.1 is the husband whose marriage was solemnized with Manju Oew (since deeeased) In June, 1998. Manju Devi commttted suteide by consumir^ polson on 25.1't.2004in the house of present respondents No.1 to 3. She was shtftad to G.I.M.S. Bilaspur,whsre she dfed. Meig was recorded and offencavi^ inv^Ugated. Autopsy was conducted. 3. After completton of inve^igaflon, charge aheet waa flted betore the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, BilsKpur for offence punWiabto under Section 304A, 498A in the altMnativeSecU<Mi 306readwittiS8Gtton34ofttw I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was commttted to the Court of Sesstons, Bltas{»» and the leamed Sessicms Judge made over the casa to the AddiUonat Sessions Judge for its Wal. 4. AFter provldlng opportuntty of hearing to the partfea; the laamed Addittonal Swawis Judge acquittod responderrts No.1 to 3 oftha chaiges under Section 498A, 304B and inthe altemative under Section 308 t.P.C. on the ground <hat prosecuUon hasfalled to prove itecase beyend aUshadow ef doubt. 5. By fitlng ttie revtsion, present applicant has challenged die lagality and proprirty <rf the judgment of iKsqulUaton the ground ttwrt whito acquttBng respondents No.1 to 3, the Court below has committed grave Wtegallfy and Us findings are perverse. 6. We have heafd Shri Y.C. Sharma, leamed counset for the applicant, Shri Utlam Pandey, leamed counsd for respondents No.1 to3 and Shri JA.Lohani, P.L. fbrthe State/respondent No.4 and perused Uw juc^mant fmpugned including recordoftha Courtbelow. 7. Leamed counsel for the applteant vehsmenUy argued that the Gourt below has not appreciated the evidence avaMabte on recoret In Us prepw perspecUve and has committod tltegallty. Ftndings <rf theCourtbdow are perverse. The Court bdow has jgnored the evktence adducad on brtalf of prosecution especially the evktencs of P.W.1 Arjun PrassKl ©upta.P.W2 Bhim Prasad Gupta, uncto of the deceased and P.W3 Snrt. MaM Devt, mother ofthe deceased and thereby commltted an Utegallty. 8. On ttie otfier hand, teamed counsel for the respondents opposed the pefition and submittsd tt»at atter appreciaUng the svidehce avaitabta on record, the Court below has rightly acquBted rrepondents No.1 t®3. Findlngs ot the Court below are n<rt perverse. 9. In order to appreciate the a^uments advanead on behalf <rf the parties, we hava examined evidence on fecbrd. Whila s^aeciaUng th» evidence, in our view, the Court below has not committed any iKegalHy. Tfta Court t»low has considered the ocular, oral and documantaiy evidmee eqsecially written letters and agreement whfeh clearfy reveated ttmt ttere wassome dispute butriot relating todemandof dowry. Thedweawdwas issueless and ttiis was also one of the causes ft»r her dopns^on. Aller appreciaUng the evidence availabto on record, the Court Bslow has arrived at a finding that prosecutton has not proved the charges espectally«tom»idof dowry ttat too before the deatt of tt>e deceased er abetment toGommit suicide by respondents No.1 to 3. Therefore, the Court betow has aoquUwl respondentsNo.1 to3. 10. On ctose scrutiny of the evtdence, we do nrt flnd any peivasity or ill^ality in the aforesaid flndings requiring intBrference in exefcise of revislonal jurisdicUen. 11. Consequently, the revision, being devoid ®(merit and substance, is liabte to be and is hereby disinissed. —-_— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge