State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lalkeshwar

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J

Heard on IA No.01/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. reported in 1996 3 SCC 132, the delay of 47 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.

Also heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC.

This petition is preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.8.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) in Session Trial No.548/2011 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondent for the charges under 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for abetting his wife namely Kamoda Devi to commit suicide.

To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. As per the autopsy report, the deceased died due to drowning in the pond. Suresh Kumar (PW-4) and Ram Mangal (PW-5) deposed before the trial Court that the deceased was not in a fit mental condition and looking to their statement, it is established that the act of drowning is an independent act of the deceased. Though Parmeshwar Yadav (PW-6), Lagar (PW-8) and Budhinarayan Gupta (PW-2) deposed before the trial Court that there was quarrel between the deceased and the respondent, but their statement is general in nature. These witnesses are not in a position to say as to what was really going on in the house of the deceased. Parmeshwar Yadav (PW-6) has admitted in his cross-examination that no quarrel between the deceased and the respondent took place before him. Lagan (PW-8) is not stable to his version and he deposed that he did not hear about the quarrel between the respondent and the deceased. This witness further deposed that the deceased tried one or twice for drowning but anyhow the villagers saved her. Budhinarayan Gupta (PW-2) is hearsay witness to whom the incident of quarrel was informed but this witness has not clearly stated as to what was the nature of quarrel and how it was started.

The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence on record and recorded finding of acquittal. After reassessing the evidence, this Court has no reason to record a contrary finding. It is not a case where the respondent should be called for full consideration of the case.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the CrMP stands dismissed.