-r.l^ !N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH ^rlal MCrCW6.\^\ Of 2001 Cri.ADDealNo. Of 2001 APPLiCANT APPELLANT The State of Chhattisgarh Versus NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT .•' ^ yt'<^..*' ^ ^y^ ^" ^- ^y, ' <o?? fe'"" ^' 1 ^. Mahavir Prasad, aged about 52 years, S/o Raghunath 2. _ Sumant Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Mahavir Prasad Both R/o Viilage Sarbhoka (Basanpara),P.S.Patna, Distt. Koriya (C'Garh) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECT30N 378(3) AND MEiVIO OF APPEAL UNDER J SECT!OhT378(1)^FTHECODE^brCRIMJNAL 1 PROCEDURE. 1973 HIGH GOURT QP <3HHATTI8GARH AT B1LAWITR SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR 0IWAKBR CRA.NO. 89S/2@01 APPBLLANT RBSPONDBWT8 versus State ofChhattisg^-h Mahavir Rrasad & Anofher Shri Praveen Das.» Dy. 0,A, for fhe State/appellaxit, Smt Meena Shastd, cousisel for ftie respondents. APPLICATION POR GRNT OP LEAVB TO APBAL U/8 378(31 & CR.A. U/S 378(11 CR.P.C. JUDOMBNT (20-01-2010) It has been reported fbat tfae respoixient N0.2 had expired durmg tihie pendency offbe present a^peal. 2, The preaent appeal is dirccted a^aioat flie judgmex^ dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Chief Jiidicial Magistr&te Baikunthpur, Distdct Koriya in Cr. Case No. 55/95 acqiutting fhe respondents for fhe aUeged offeiwes uader Sections 498 (A) & 506 (B) ofthe IPC. 3. Case of fhe prosecutioa ia brief is that 011 24.7.93, FIR Ex.P/4 was lodged by P.W.-l Beena Bai aUegiag in that. that her inamage wifh accused/rcspondeaat N0,2 was soleiimized ia fhe year 1982 aad thereafter she was subjected to cruelty by fhe respondente/accused for demaiid ofdowiy. 4. So as to hold fhe respondents/accused guilty, prosecution has exaaimed 9 witaesses m support of its case. Statexnents of fhe respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr,P,C. in which fhey denied fhe charges leveUed against them aad pleaded fhesr mnocence aud fatee iiaplication ia the case, Thfe aparty oxie defence witaess has also been examiaed in support of its case. 5. After hearing fhe parties fhe trial Court has acquitted fhe accused/respondentsoffhe offence as mentioBed ab<we. 6, Diirmg pendency of fhe present appeal accused/respondent N0<2 Sumant (husbaod of fhe coanplainarit) has expired aad fhereft>re fhe present appeal confines only to respondent No.l. 7. Heard counsel for fhe partfes aad perused tfae material available oa record mcludiiig the judgment impugned, 8. P.W,-1 Beena Bai fhough has made certain allegatibns against fhe accused persons but fhe same appears to be general m nature aad there is no specific allegation agauiat fhe present surviviag respondent Furfher tfae statemeiit of P.W.-l has not been supported by any offhe witnesses aad they have admitted fhat earlier also attempt was naade by fhe complamaat to lodge several reports ^gamst the respondents (Ex.P/4,5,6,7, & ^ however^ m these reports fhere is no speci&c aUegation agaiast fhe accused peraoas regardmg demand ofdowry or harassment. 9. After goiag fhrough fhe entire evidence M ia ctear fhat fhe piDsecution has fafled to establjhsh its case beyond all the reasonable doubts. Moreover fhe statemeat of the prosecution witaesses have been conipletely falsified by tibe defence witness who has categoricaUy stated fhat it ia the coxaplaiaant who was at faiilt c ^ 10, After due apprcciation, flie Ck>urt below has arrived to a conclusion ofacquittiiig the aocused persons, 9. Thus after hearing counsel for the partiea and considering fhe xnaterial avaUable on rccord as weU as fhe elaborate judgmesit impugaed passed by the Court telow aad beiag very much conscioiis offhe existmg legalpositiDXi fhat in aa appeal agamst acquittal if two views are possible on fhe basis of fhe evidence led by fhe piosecutioxi and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accBsed, r^ve^ion of fhe findiags of acquittal by the appeUant Court taldng fhe ofher possible view mto consideratioa, ia not paramssible m law, fhis Coitrt is of ffae view tfaat ftxe judgixient taipagaed acquitting fhe respondeats/accused of fhe offciiee under Sections 456 & 323 of fhe Indiaii Penal Code, is jiist smd proper and does not warrant aay mterfereace by thia Court» Accordingly, tihie appeal fafls and is dismissed as siwfa. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge