<' v.^'^~ .'?-: -..^i,-.^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &-JVI.P. N0. €'^/2008. ,^ n d /) APPELLANT:- Yashwant Sahu S/o Jeevrakhan Sahu, ?....,-^';<^iS'> Aged about 39 years .^^i^" E—-:" ';*»r-''111*^Z^^^^'A-^ • Police Station Abhanpur, RESPONDENT:- Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS J.R. Dhruv (Jitturain Dhruv) S/o Shyam Lal Dhruv, Aged about 26 years, R/o Govennment Polytechnic College, Ujjain (M.P.) APPUCAT!QN_FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF ACOUITTSL UNDER SECTION 378(41 OF THE COSE OF CMMINAL PROCEDU5E Y, @IS;i?,?^ EtliSB •^a..^ URT OF Uiu; «^«=faicBT~;tlB^ le Bench : Honbie /Ar'. Jystics Pntinker Di' AcQ.A'oseQl No; 320 of 2010 APPELLAN" Vashwant Sahu Dhruw (J'itturear! Dhruv^ Shri Satyendra Sahu, counse! for the appei'ant. Shri C.R. Sahu. coiinssi for ths resoondent CRI^INAL ('06.08.2010). . Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2007 passed by,Judicia! Magistrote First 'G'ass, Raipur in'Crimina! Case No. 495/2005 wherebY!rlo; complaint case acquitting the respondsnt/accused. ui'*ri®i" Section 500, 506 part-I and 294 of the Indiai Pena! Go.de. 2, Brief facts of the ccse are, that on 1.4.1998 a complairit1 case was fiied by ths appeitant/compiainant agaihst the responderit/accused asleging i" it that the cor"p!ainant and^the. accused are resident of same viilage, however, presen+.iy th respondent/accused is in Government job and is being posted at Ujjain. It is an admjtted position that both the parties used to yjsit the house pf each other. It is a.tjeged by the complainant/appeliai'itt.Katcsrtain letters were written byt.h.e respondent/accused by using filthy ianguage and aiso fhraxtning him.It is'also dieged that some un-ca!!ed for words have o.lso been mentioned in respec<t of the wife of the compiainant and thereby he ho.s comm'tted the offencgs under' 's ^""'s*^,. R>";€. "% ••^S&SXi'Sf^ .• ^'. \ •'^--.// ' ^^^^^s^ sagi., Section 500, 506, 294, 427, 511 and 389 of the Indian ,De"ai. ' Code. ': • 3. Apart frofn the statement of the appeiiQnt/compia'nanT,.^ statement of three other witnesses namelv Onkar Prosoa . Sharma (CW-1), Rakesh Sharnia (CW-2) &, Tribhuvansoj Sahu- (CW-3) were recorded bsfore the court below, to ppoye the char-ges against the respondent/accused under Sectiori 5QQ 506-A and 294 of the Indion Pena! Code. ' A' 4. Counsei for the appeilant/comploinant submits t.hat on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant, the court: below ought to have convicted the accused/respondent. . On the other hand, counge! for the respondent supports :: the impugned judgment orsd submits that impugned judgr"ent is : in accordsnce with law and there is no infirTiity in the same. .' 6.. I have heard counse! for the pcsrties and perused the materia! avaiiabie on record includlng judgment impugned. 7. After due. appreciatjon of the eyidence, learned court- below has accjuitted the respondent/accuse-d on the. foilowint jrounds:- (A) That the ingredien+s of Ssction 500 of the Indian Penal Code are not mo.de out against the respondent/accuse.d because the so-cailed ie.tte.rs written by r'espondent/accused were sent to the compiainant by registered post cmd as they have not been pubiished, it cannot be said that -rhe ingredients of Section 500 of the Indian Psnd Code is mo.de. out. (B) That the complainant had not disciosed befope Omkar Prasad Sahu (CW-1) and Ro.kesh Sharma (GW-2) :^~ •'.''-'..'• f"'"-', ''•-. .•rl. • . -1.. *;• ^^5^^:. SI ''{?' .£r: '^.i'isa-^ y rse Gccused. nad usea any cleTam.o words against him and it is the applicont who his fcmiiy members and the members of Socii shown them those ietters. 'nQuaqe or id cctileci and had (C) That in his s+atement the compia.mfmt has not disclosed that those ietters have caused the alSeged defamation in any manner whatsoever because the contents of the same do not spell that the people of the Society had nurtured any hatred or i!i-wili against him. The trid Court has aiso observed that the respect or disrespect is aiways to be assesssd by others and not by the person concerned himself. It has been admitted by the complainant and hi-s other witnesses that in respect of relation between th.e accused/respondent and the wife of the complainant, Society meeting was calied and it is the compiainant who had ousted his wife. (E) That the respondent/accused threa+ened the complainant nor these ietters Exs.P-1 to P-4 have been fuliy proved by th.e complaincmt in accordance with law. (F) That the statements of the witnesses of the complainant are not fully reliable. (<5) That the court statement of the complainont doe-s not fuliy tally with the averments made in the complaint. 8. Aftsr due apprecio+ion of the eyidence Gyaitable on record, the Court below has orrived to a concjusion that the complainant has not been able to prove. its cose beyond.a!! ..-—....^.-^/' \..' . •' • . "• ,;u-^' reasonable doubts, and therefors the respondent/accused is entitled for acquittai. 9. After heor.ing counsel for the parties andgoing through the eyidence avai'abie on record and being very much. conscious of ths existing legai position tho.t in a case o.gainst acquittcl,if two views are possible on th.e basis of the evidence Isd by .the prosecution and the tria! Court' taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of o.cquitta! by the appellate Court taking the other possible vsew into considerotion, is not permissiblein law.th.is Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable under Sections 500, .506 part-I and 294 of the Indian Psnal Code, is just and proper and does not call for any interference bythis Court. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merst in the present case and the same is dismissed accordingly^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge M /