¢)3 t (by WNO (/JQJMO 0332 OF 20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH aw‘éCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2005 aAPPELLANT °?P osecutlon State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT Mahendra Ram, S/o Mohan Ram Rajwar aged 36 years R/o QAW JcbVillagePS Amblkapur Istt SurgUJa (C ) $5M” APPLICATION FQR‘GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(33 AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3781 1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUR 1973 />F mAk- Swat, Emma 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. M.P. No. 227 of 2009 State of Chhattisgarh. APPLICANT VERSUS Mahendra Ram son of Mohan Ram. RESPONDENT Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for the applicant/State. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O R D E R (04 .11.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 324/2004 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under section 306 of the Indian PenalCode. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.5.2004 deceased Archana, the wife of the respondent/accused committed suicide by consuming poison. On 13.5.2004 a written report (Ex. P-6) was lodged by Puran Ram Rajwade (PW-4), the father of the deceased alleging that his daughter (deceased herein) was subjected to cruelty by the respondent/accused. It has been further alleged that the respondent/accused used to grab the entire money earned by his daughter. It is alleged that the respondent/accused was having illicit relations with one Minabai and on this count he was harassing {f the deceased. lt is alleged that once by putting the deCeased under pressure, the respondent/accused had taken Rs. 60,000 from him for purchasing tractor. 3. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that the Court below has committed a glaring legal error in awarding acquittal to the j $ respondent/accused despite there being sufficient material availabi‘e on record calling for his conviction. 4. Prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded false implication in the case. in addition to this, two witnesses namely Shyamnath (DW—1) and Mayaram (DW—2) have also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 5. The Court below has recorded a finding in the judgment impugned that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and therefore the respondent/accused is entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. 6. Closer look of the material available on record reveals that at the time of giving the merg intimation, statement of Puran Ram Rajwade (PW-4) was recorded in which he has not made any specific allegation of cruelty against the respondent/accused. However, in his subsequent statement recorded before the Court, he has made allegation of cruelty against him. Statement of Investigating Officer (PW-3) shows that after investigation the proceedings were decided to be dropped as no case as alleged was made out but subsequently on the instructions of his superior officer the investigation was pressed ahead and charge sheet was filed. Be that as it may, the material available before this Court does indicate anything about the instigation by the respondent/accused N y, which could have forced the deceased to end her life and thus the ingredients of abetment under section 107 IPC are not visible in this case. 7. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the- _ W ._z_ evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appeiiate Court taking the other possibie view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. ,, /7. jgdl— r “ stalkermwa‘t J“dge \\ ‘ ”4 \ t