Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Bhuneshwar Garg And Ors on 11 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 49 of 2015
The State of Chhattigarh Through : District Magistrate,
Bemetara (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Bhuneshwar Garg, S/o Mohit Garg, Caste Satnami, aged
about 32 years, R/o village Karhi, Police Station
Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
2. Amol Singh Banjre, S/o Bisouha Banjare, aged about 56
years, R/o Block 16-H Sector Cross Street - 1 Bhilai,
Sector 1, P.S. Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg (C.G.)
3. Ranjna Garg, W/o Bhuneshwar Garg, aged about 32
years, R/o Karhi, Police Station - Bemetara, District
Bemetara (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Appellant/State : Mr. Sameer Oraon, G.A.
For Respondent : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
(11/11/2022)
1. The present acquittal appeal has been fled by the State
against the judgment dated 04.08.2014 passed in
Sessions Trial No.28/2013 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.),
whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the
accused/respondents herein from the charges
punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 of
IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, 14-15 years ago the
marriage of deceased Meena Bai was solemnized with
accused/respondent No.1 herein and two children were
born out of their wedlock. Prior to 8-10 months of the
incident, accused/respondent No.1 with the help of
accused/respondent No.2 came into contact with
accused/respondent No.3- Ranjana Bai and planned to
bring accused/respondent No.3 as second wife of
accused/respondent No.1. The said fact came into the
knowledge of deceased Meena Bai and she went to
village of accused/respondent No.3 and dissuaded her,
despite that the accused/respondent No.1 - Bhuneshwar
along with accused/respondent No.2 - Amol and some
villagers went to Ranjana's village and brought her home
as a wife of accused/respondent No.1 and because of
that deceased Meena Bai felt a pang of guilt and
consumed poisonous substance in her home village at
Karahi. Thereafter, Meena Bai was taken to nearby
hospital where she died during the course of treatment.
During investigation, the accused/respondents were
found to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
Based on this, FIR was registered against the
accused/respondents under Section 306, 34 of IPC. After
fling of the charge sheet, the trial Judge has framed the
charge under Section 306 read with section 34 of IPC
against the accused/respondents.
3. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the
prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statements of
the accused/respondents were also recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the
circumstances appearing against them in the
prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false
implication.
4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material available on record
has acquitted the accused/respondents herein as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this
petition for leave to appeal.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial
Court failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its
true and correct perspective. The prosecution has duly
proved its case against accused/respondents. Sattedas
(PW/6) and Luv Kumar (PW/7), brother and brother-in-law
(Dewar) of deceased Meena respectively, have
categorically stated about the solemnization of second
marriage of accused/respondent No.1 with
accused/respondent No.3 but the learned trial Court,
without appreciating the evidence of aforesaid
witnesses, recorded its fnding of acquittal and
discharged the accused/respondents from the charges
levelled against them. As such, the impugned judgment
is liable to be set aside and accused/respondents is
liable to be held guilty under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for
accused/respondents supported the impugned judgment
and submitted that Ku. Seema (PW/4), daughter of
deceased Meena Bai and accused/respondent No.1, has
not supported the case of the prosecution and stated in
her examination-in-chief that her mother deceased
Meena Bai was sufering from abdominal pain and
because of that she consumed Vasmol oil. Learned
counsel also submits that apart from this witness, other
witnesses have also not supported the case of the
prosecution. Even Sattedas (PW/6) and Luv Kumar
(PW/7), brother and brother-in-law (Dewar) of deceased
Meena, only stated about the second marriage of
accused/respondent No.1, however, important ingredient
of abetment of suicide has not been proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the fnding
recorded by the learned Court below is in accordance
with law and facts, which do not call for any interference
by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
8. Ku. Seema (PW/4), daughter of the deceased and
accused/respondent No.1 was examined, who has stated
in her examination-in-chief that her mother was
sufering from abdominal pain and because of which she
consumed Vasmol oil. In cross-examination, she denied
the fact of solemnization of second marriage of his
father accused/respondent No.1 with
accused/respondent No.3. That apart, Sattedas (PW/6)
and Luv Kumar (PW/7), brother and brother-in-law
(Dewar) of deceased Meena, only stated that
accused/respondent No.1 was having illicit relationship
with accused/respondent No.3 but in their statements
important ingredient of abetment of suicide is missing.
The learned trial Court also meticulously appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence and statements of
witnesses including PW/6 and PW/7 and recorded its
fnding in paras 27 to 2r that the prosecution has
failed to adduce any legally admissible evidence against
the accused/respondents that they abetted the
deceased to commit suicide and acquitted the
accused/respondents of the charge levelled against
them by extending beneft of doubt. This Court do not
fnd any illegality in the order impugned acquitting the
respondents particularly when there is a settled legal
position that if on the basis of record two conclusions
can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to
be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has
utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable
doubt and the trial Court has been fully justifed in
recording the fnding of acquittal which is based on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record.
Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the
scope is very limited and interference can only be made
if fnding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or
arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and
considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no
such circumstance is there warranting interference by
this Court.
r. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
PKD
