State Of Chhattisgarh vs Bhukhluram Suryavanshi
2022 Latest Caselaw 7523 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                 NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       CRMP No. 338 of 2018

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Incharge, Police Station
     Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)
                                                   ---- Appellant
                                Versus
1.   Bhukhluram Suryavanshi, S/o Visheshar Suryavanshi, aged
     about 67 years,

2.    Chhatram Suryavanshi, S/o Bhukhluram Suryavanshi, aged
      about 33 years,

3.    Bhagwati Bai, W/o Bhukhluram Suryavanshi, aged about 60
      years,

      All R/o Village Khokhra, Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-
      Champa (CG)

4.    Ajeetram Suryavanshi S/o Late Rameshwar, age 50 years, R/o
      Village Sarkho, Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
      (CG)
                                                     ---- Respondents

For Appellant/State : Shri Ali Asgar, Dy. AG For Respondents : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order On Board

13/12/2022

Heard on admission.

02. The appellant has filed this application seeking leave to appeal

under Section 378(3) of CrPC against the judgment dated 5.9.2017

passed by the Sessions Judge, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) in

Sessions Trial No.20/2017 acquitting the respondents of the charges

under Sections 498A, 306, 34 of IPC.

03. As per the prosecution case, deceased Ulfi was married to the

respondent/accused Chhatram Suryavanshi about 11-12 years prior to

the date of incident i.e. 31.5.2016 and soon after marriage, the

accused persons started harassing her mentally and physically in

connection with demand of dowry. Though several efforts were made

through social meeting to resolve the dispute but the ill-treatment to the

deceased on the part of the accused persons continued. Being fed up

with this persistent ill-treatment, she committed suicide on 30.5.2016

by consuming poison.

04. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the

impugned judgment of acquittal is per se bad in law and liable to be set

aside. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence

available on record which establishes the guilt of the

respondents/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the

impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the

respondents be held guilty of the aforesaid offence.

05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

06. The trial Court considering the nature and quality of evidence

adduced by the prosecution, the fact that none of the family members

of the deceased supported the prosecution case; there is no evidence

to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused

persons in connection with demand of dowry or they committed any

such act which amounts to instigation to the deceased to commit

suicide; arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove

its case against the respondents/accused beyond all reasonable doubt

and hence acquitted them of the charge u/s 498A, 306, 34 of IPC.

07. It is a well settled principle of law that in case of appeal against

acquittal, the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if

finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by

ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones.

Having gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court in the

impugned judgment and the evidence of the witnesses, this Court finds

no such illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent

of the said charge.

08. In the result, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.

Accordingly, this petition being without substance is hereby dismissed

at the admission stage itself.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

Khan