illllllllll ! :- CF0000061454 •——•—~,"""~~> .', •'^ :':';''..-~^l'\l\JKyif •^^^^^l!w^^'!^ws..^i .^nJV.'VT-^~^-''AJ't-^-v'V^A''''"'''Y,~. 'r=-= .^K-fr' >•' IBi » ^^'^^w-^rf-'^''"9'''''''"''*''^'''''^'' IN.THEi;HIQ@^e©IBIOP.M&M3K,. &EESa.M'-.;3ABM,E®j GRIMaSI. APISAL: 8®.. AE¥E.I£Aa'{-^~<-, BESBBNSEMESS- ;;n...... Si^-.. i:a- ^^.—^- ^fe..B^.-- Z...—"^icA* -THE'SIA'EB'®?,»•{'.-; STASI©N'BOH6ABSffl&ifc. !•,••'-VE&S%S- :^: 1;;.-".:.;',; ^);J))S]E&M.'' AN.'SX:'SA^aB-^Bate .';AiS^'i32:' -2EA8S.:•.:--': ! ^•I^VW ^^-"ARIF 'tHAN, 'i:S/Q: ^SS, ^•l'2t::;'XEARS..-.:.:x,...*':.:.•.;'.•..^'.''• :^' XSAS .KESBA••t/0.'SiEEB&fi^ KAS> 'r : K%^,^AeEfi,*8.^® S.,^.':,:L^.,:·-^,..;.'<'/^^^ /-^-.»aft-'»/@:rASI.A ,K^:,X»H,''A&Efi. 122.%ABS.''''':^\:l..';.::,'.:.:'.;\;:-lil;^-^^^ .' .. ;fci ^?;M©HB<.;.ASBAB,KJ|^N,-<,S/Q~;a6RB&a-;| /;AHm|eL.EH&M».l;ASEI^^';'!Ei^..,:.',-.^l':^| ',;6)^.SARI&RS*gK ^®Wi:S/©:,AnaR.'.l'.';l| S;,.AG^S::'55:;'''£E2&S'.::,.,::'.1.11^';'^;,.'^| ^^.•.^B.rAKfiBMR^S^^SAKB^ABKASl 'IXH ,^^§r.28::;aB^&S..:^..?^^,,;^:1'^!., !:;:\I >-8)?,S&3MBA'.;B^^,^y^.'laS8$^;.fi^B^£'Ki ii'ss^^&&^^is^,S^~- ;"^~-.:';1[ r'k \'A%^@^^$;P©gilXWSAKgABa^.•,.l.^.;:.i|,|:!!' POJ3.GEjSaTI»,ISONSA AitB,' ia.STT«'K;i 1<*; &FSI't^m^.m^-M!.^^ SWK^essw-i^^^^^^ '^7: -^ ; '..y KBEE&t. i^ M^.^mi^Sk^& '. / B!I"I •'iu, •*•' "ic^.... HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. h/lr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 1997. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG) Aslam Khan and others. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA, forthe appellant/State. Shri H.B.Agrawal.learned Sr. counsel with Smt. Mira Jaiswal for the complainant. As despite -issuanee of SPC none appears for the respondents/accused, Shri Vijay Deshmukh, Advocate who is in the panel of High Court Legal Services Authority, is appointed as counsel for the respondents/accusedin this case. CRIWIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (DOFTHECODEOF CRIiVIINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (11.01.2010) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargah in Criminal Case No. 223/1994 acquitting the respondents/accused of theoffence under Section498-A/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code; 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a written report (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the complainant namely Shamim Bano (PW-1) alleging that her marriage with Mohd. Asraf—respondent No.S/accused was solemnized on 17.11.1993 andsince very begjnning ^ereof she was subjected to cruelty by the .'-,/. •- respdridents/accused. On the basis of this written report, FIR (Ex. P-2)was registered against them on 13.4.1994. I • : ' '• 3. So as t6 hold the respondents/accused guilty, prosecution has examined-05 witness.es in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under section 313 of the Gode of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against,them and pleaded their innocence and false af'i'-aa! '^i«!.,eafi •y-~— s implication in the case. This apart, one witness namely Shahista Khan (DW-1) was also examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused / respondents offhe offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the p^rties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the respondents/accused submits that on the basis of material available on record the Court below ought to have convicted the accused persons for the offences mentioned above and by acquitting them a grave illegality has been committed by it which requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 7, On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused and that fpr the complainant support the impugned judgment. 8. From, the statement of Shamim Bano (PW-1), it is clear that on the basis of the report lodged by the respondents/accused on 21.1.1994, a case was registered against the family members ofthe complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 342/34. From her statement it is also clear that when some of the accused persons had gone to take the complainant from her parents' house, she was not sent along with them as her husband himself had not come to take her and on account of that there was some quarrel with them. From the record it is alsd clear that the parents o^the^complainant are the sole witnesses and no other iridepenefent witness has been examined by the prosecution in support'of itscase. Even the father of the complainant namely Shahb&n Ali (PW-2) has admitted in his evidence that his daughter did not inform him about any harassment or demand of dowry by the respondents/acGus.ed. Thus the Court below appears to be right in acquitting the~r..espondents/accused and no disturbance to the same is calledfor ih appeaF Moreover, this Court is very much conscious of the eXtsting legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible-view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interi'erence by this Court. ' "r' Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. —~ Sd'- Pritinker Diwaker Jadge 37- 1; -. /