U! mWW w“ 1mm (*GUM OF MA Hm PRMESH M JAMLPURQ ‘ ‘ _ ‘ ' ‘ CRIMINAL APmu. No¢ ‘\ ég v H936. ; ‘ ‘ ‘ vmce mmAL CAsa N . i ogggig i 1 . / r - , y l APPkLumn, ‘ . 2,; Tm, 3%}?h 0;: MADHYA mam '1 ‘ I a €3‘_§ f ' WONDENT#a- " ‘ T L :— ' MgITLAL, >-V£Rsm- a/o vmmmm, i " R/a ~ ‘ 7 ‘ ' [@W 7 \ , v awmw EIJTT BELA nbwRI, DUMMP}. Pm” gamma, \. WnFLICAmION FOR MVL TG APHSAL UND ‘h'wix r ‘ 'V 1 ‘ %( ‘ ‘ jx ' I I ER. iar u ‘ ‘ n W ‘ § f , ~ cpoooooaoa24 ,i‘ “if, /'/‘ 5L ....... Eiilji’ ... .. " ~ 7 y <1 ,> - V a a \ : : ~ (,x / / , ‘3” >54 ;. (Y . ...... g é / .‘E‘f “"EE g9“... V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT EILASPUR Singie Bench : Hon‘ble Mr. Jusiice Fri-tinker Diwnker Criminal Agaal No. 1188 of 1995 APPELLANT The 5mm cf Madhya Prodesh Versus RESPONDENT Amriflai, son cf Vidyanand Shri Praveen Das, Dy, 60W. Advocafe for the State. ’Shr'i Malay Shrivasfuva, ccunsei for The respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 g2} OF THE CODE OF CRIIiiNAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT ((39.07.2010) Present appeal arises ouf of The impugned judgmenf and order- dafed‘ 3.2.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magisimfe i Bilaspur' in Criminal Case Na. 233/1995 whereby acquih‘ing The respondent of the offence underSecTion 365 of The Indian Penai Code. 2. Case of the prosecufion in briefk is ~Tha‘i on 12.3.1992 F.I.R. (un-exhibi'i'ed) was lodged by Melau Ram (PW-1) - fa'rher- in-law of The prosecufrix (PW-2) alleging ihai‘ on ihat day a’r about 5 pm when The prosecufrix was returning home from The river, The accused/applicanT apprehended her and forcibly Took her inside The house. IT is alleged ThaT prosecuTr-ix (PW-Z) was kepT in The said house for abouT 5 - 6 hours and ThereofTer, she was seT free afTer The inTervenTion of. The police and villagers. AfTer invesTigaTion, chailan was filed on 3.41992 for The offences under SecTions 342, 363 and 368 of The llndian Penal Code and charges were framed by The learned courT i -beiow on 18.5.1992 for The offence under SecTion 365 of The Indian Penal gode. : l i 3. So as 1'0 hold ‘rhe &ccused/responden+ guil‘ry, prosecufian has examined as many as 11 Witnesses m support of 11‘s case 5fafement of fhe accusrad/r‘espandem was also recorded under: Sachon 315 of Tho Code, of Crimingl Prooedgke in which he demed the charges levelled ogamsT him and pleaded ms Innocence and false Implicafmn m fhe case 4. By fhe' impugned judgmen‘r \fhe cour’r below has acqui’rfed The respondenf/accused of fhe offence under Section 365 o The Indian Pena! Code 5‘. Heard counsel for ‘rhe parties and perueed The material available on record including fhe Judgmen‘i impugned. 6. Counsel for the Sfafe/appelian‘l submiis That on ihe basis of The si'aiemen’r of fhe prosecufmx alone respondent ought to have been conwci'ed by The cour‘i below He submits 'ihal' 'rhe ingredieni's of See‘hon 365 of The Indian Penal Code are apparenfly made out against ihe responden‘i/accused bui ignoring The same, The com-T below has acquiTTed him. 7, On The oTher hand, supporting The impugned JudgmenT, iT has been argued by counsel for The respondenT ThaT from The sTaTemenT of The prosecuTrix iT appears ThaT she wenT along wiTh The respondenT/accused of her own and she sTayed wiTh him for abouT 5-6 hours. He submiTs ThaT possibiliTy of affair " beTween The respondenT and The prosecuTrix cannoT‘be ruled ouT. 8. I have heard counsel for The parTies and perused The maTerial available on‘record. f 9‘ Prosecuhr‘ix (PW-2) has swfed Thai 9n 123.1992 when she was ramming from 1he river m about 5 pm, jusi oppasifc ’ro The house of the respondent she was apprehended and Then the appeHam‘ forcibly Tcok her inside The house. She has siated ’rhm she Tried w come ou’r from the ciu‘iches af ihe accused/respondent bu? she faiied To do so. She has further smied fhaf The accused/appeiian’t mounted on her- chest and tried to'press her neck. She has further stated that at about 11 pm when police came, door ‘was opened by the accused/respondent and during this period accused/respondent has not done anything, In paragraph 5 & 6 of her cross-examination prosecutrix admits that she has improved her version in the court statement from that of statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal .Prooedure. Statement of the prosecutrix appears to be doubtful and possibility cannot be ruled out that she was having some affair- with the respondent. Other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case and there are material contradictions and omissions in the same. All these aspects have been duly considered by the court below while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into s