High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.02.20 14:35:19 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR ACQA No. 8 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 14.02.2025 Judgment Delivered on 20.02.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. versus ...Appellant 1. Chandan Patwa, S/o Birbal Patwa, aged about 25 Years, Occupation- Labour, 2. Birbal Patwa, S/o Ramgahan Patwa, aged about 55 Years, Occuaption- Labour, 3. Smt. Shanti Devi, W/o Birbal Patwa, aged about 50 Years, Occupation House Wife, All are R/o Village Sonpurva, Police Station Gadhwa, District Gadhwa, Jharkhand. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : None, though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.R-09/2013, whereby the learned trial Court 2 acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3 herein of the charges under Sections 498-A, 323/34 and 313/34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of complainant/PW-1 Arti Devi was solemnized with respondent No.1 Chandan Patwa on 14.07.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and soon after the marriage, PW-1 Arti Devi joined the company of the respondent No.1 and out of their wedlock, one female child was born. After some time of marriage, accused persons started harassing the complainant/PW- 1 Arti Devi in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- for construction of toilet and when she refused, accused persons started assaulting her, upon which, she called her parents to her matrimonial home and with the help of police, she came to her village and stayed there for two years with her daughter. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 Chandan Patwa filed a case against the complainant's parents, her brother and other persons on 22.09.2011. After that, compromise took place between the parties and in pursuance of compromise, respondent No.1 took the complainant with him. Again on 02.02.2013, accused persons raised another demand of motorcycle and for which, they demanded Rs.50,000/- and this time also complainant refused, then accused persons abused her filthily and assaulted her with hands, legs and fists. After that, she called her parents to Gadhwa and after informing the incident in writing (Ex.P-1) to police station Trikunda, she along with her daughter and parents came to her village Mahuli. At the time of incident, PW-1/complainant was two months pregnant and due to assault, her pregnancy was miscarriaged. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered against the accused persons. On 09.02.2013, PW-1 Arti Devi was sent 3 for medical examination vide Exs.P-9 & P-10 where Dr. Govind Singh PW-11 examined her and gave his MLC reports vide Exs.P-9 & P-10. After completion of investigation, accused persons were taken into custody vide Exs.P-5 to P-7. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3 before the concerned trial Court under Sections 498-A, 323/34 and 313/34 of IPC. Accused/respondents No. 1 to 3 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 11 documents connecting the respondents No.1 to 3/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents No.1 to 3/accused persons have examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Motichandra and exhibited four documents i.e. Ex.D-1, D-2, D-3 & D-5. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3 of said charges leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is completely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3 herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. She would further submit that the evidence available on record clearly shows that complainant/PW-1 was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry by the 4 respondents No.1 to 3 and when she refused, they assaulted her frequently, by which, she suffered injuries over her body. She would also submit that there is sufficient evidence on record which would show the complicity of the accused persons in the crime in question and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective, thus the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. PW-1 victim has stated in her deposition that after one year of marriage, accused persons started harassing her in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- for construction of toilet and also committed marpeet with her, by which, she sustained injuries over her head and they also ousted her from the matrimonial home and after that, she remained in her parental home for two years. In para 6, she 5 has stated that on 02.02.2013, accused persons raised demand of motorcycle and for which, they again demanded Rs.50,000/-. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that neither she nor her father/PW-2 lodged any report in Garhwa Police Station or Trikund Police with regard to demand of Rs.50,000/- by the accused persons for construction of Toilet. She further admitted that accused persons have their own house which has eight rooms. She also admitted that when she had given application to police station Garhwa to keep her daughter along with her and to go to her parental home, at that time, she did not mention anything in the said application that accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and committed marpeet with her. However, as against this, her father (PW-2) has stated that accused persons used to taunt her daughter/victim that he had given less articles during Tilak ceremony in marriage, for which, in the year 2012, he had given Rs.50,000/- for construction of toilet, but in cross- examination, he admitted that victim/PW-1 told him that accused persons committed marpeet with her for bringing less articles during Tilak ceremony. Apart from this, PW-3 brother of the victim has also denied that victim told him that accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchasing motorcycle from his father and committed marpeet with her. He also admitted that for one month, her sister/victim used to live at her matrimonial home and thereafter, for three months at her parental home. He also admitted that after one year of marriage i.e. in the year 2009, accused-Chandan Patwa demanded motorcycle, but PW-1 victim has stated on 02.02.2013, accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- from her father for purchasing motorcycle. He also admitted that after marriage, her sister/victim used to talk with us (family members) over 6 mobile. Moreover, PW-4 Anil has stated that there must have been short of food in their house, therefore, accused persons used to demand money from the victim. PW-5 mother of the victim has stated that after one year of marriage, accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- from the victim for construction of toilet, then her husband/PW-2 gave Rs.50,000/- to accused-Chandan Patwa and after some time, accused persons again demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchasing motorcycle. However, in cross- examination, she admitted that she did not lodge any report in police station with regard to money demanded by accused persons for construction of toilet and for purchasing motorcycle and commission of marpeet with the victim. PW-6 Saroj, sister of victim, has stated that the time of incident was about 11:00 am and the same is also mentioned in FIR (Ex.P-4), but PW-9 Awadesh Verma, who firstly saw the victim in injured condition, has stated that the incident took place at 3:00 pm. Apart from this, PW-1 victim has stated that after the incident, she became unconscious, but PW-6 Saroj and PW-9 Awadesh Verma have stated that victim told them that accused persons committed marpeet with her in connection of demand of Rs.50,000/-. Besides, PW-2 father of victim and PW-8 Ramkaran have stated that the matter which was pending before the Garhwa Court has been settled by PW-9 Awadesh Verma, but, in fact, PW-9 Awadesh Verma has stated that he did not settle any such matter between them. This apart, PW-1 victim and PW-2 father of the victim have stated that due to marpeet committed by the accused persons, victim's pregnancy was miscarriaged at Wadrafnagar Hospital, but 7 PW-11 Dr. Govind Singh who medically examined the victim found that injuries Nos.1 & 2 sustained by the victim were simple in nature and for injury No.3 which was on the stomach of the victim, he referred the victim to lady doctor, but lady doctor has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. In cross-examination, PW-11 Dr. Govind Singh admitted that pregnancy of victim could be determined by examining CT Scan and Sonography test, but the said tests were not done and that no medical report of lady doctor or medical documents have been submitted by the prosecution to show that at the time of incident, victim was pregnant and due to assault by accused persons, her pregnancy was miscarriaged. In cross-examination, PW-10 T. Yadav, Assistant Sub- Inspector, also admitted that despite doctor's advice, he had not conducted the pregnancy test of the victim. 10. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-1 victim and her statement does not corroborate with the statements of other witnesses and the documents available on record with respect to demand of dowry and assault made by accused persons, rather it appears that the allegations leveled by her are bald and omnibus, therefore, credibility of her version is doubtful and untrustworthy. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent and clinching evidence which would show that at the time of incident, accused persons harassed and assaulted the 8 victim in connection with demand of dowry and as such, acquitted accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the said charges leveled against them as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein of the charges under Sections 498-A, 323/34 and 313/34 of IPC, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons / respondent Nos.1 to 3 of the aforesaid offences is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh