Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Chandra Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv v. 1 - Chandrakumar Sahu S/o Puniram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:41242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 901 of 2024 Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Chandra Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.), Present Address- Rumgara, Ward No. 24, Police Station- Balco Nagar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Chandrakumar Sahu S/o Puniram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Puniram Sahu S/o Anandram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Puniram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chetan Sahu S/o Puniram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Jeetendra Sahu S/o Puniram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Tileshwari W/o Puniram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Pancho @ Pooja W/o Sanjay Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sita Sahu W/o Chetan Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Dharashiv, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.08.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Mr. S.P. Sannat, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, learned counsel for the Non- applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) and convict the non-applicants under Section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 3. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2024, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, 3 Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 88/2023, arising out of the order dated 11.01.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 44/2021, whereby the accused/non-applicants were acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/applicant-Sunita Sahu lodged written report at Police Station Nawagarh on 23.05.2019 stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the Non-applicant No.1 Chandra Kumar Sahu. A few days after the marriage, the Non-applicant No.1 along with his family members started cruelty with the applicant/complainant for demand of dowry demanding motorcycle, golden ring, cash amount etc. They also started to assault her demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- cash from her parental house. On the basis of the written complaint, the police of Police Station Nawagarh registered FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2021 and after entire investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh, District - Janjgir- Champa. 5. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A read with section 34 of India Penal Code against the accused persons/non-applicants and recorded evidences. Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were examined. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons/non-applicants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their defence is that they have been falsely implicated. The 4 statement of Ramlal Sahu (DW-01) was made before the learned trial Court by the accused persons/non-applicants in their defence. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, acquitted the accused persons/non-applicants from the charges of Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 11.01.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.01.2023, the applicant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which is also dismissed by the order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure A-1), hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned court below ought to have considered the fact that a few days after the marriage, the non-applicant No.1 along with his family members started cruelty with the applicant/complainant demanding motorcycle, golden ring, cash amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from her parental house The learned court below ought to have considered the fact that the witnesses have not been examined properly by the learned trial Court. The learned court below has drawn a wrong conclusion considering the evidence and documents produced by the prosecution in the case as not being proved. The learned court below ought to have considered the fact that on 27.06.2020 at night at about 11.00 PM the accused persons/non-applicants assaulted the applicant/complainant and closed inside a room due to which the applicant became unconscious and fell down in the room. The learned courts below ought to have considered the fact that the accused persons/non-applicants used to assault and abuse the applicant demanding a motorcycle, gold ring and cash Rs. 5 3,00,000/- in dowry just after marriage. The accused persons/non- applicants used to assault the applicant by slippers and belt. Due to assault, the blood was oozing from nose and ears of the applicant and also received injuries on her hands and heads and she had become unconscious. The learned courts below ought to have considered the fact that the accused persons/non-applicants most often used to close inside a room to the applicant and did not give her meals. They have also failed to consider the fact that when the applicant disclosed to her parents about cruelty for demand of dowry, then father of the applicant called a social meeting where the prominent persons asked to the accused persons/non-applicants to not assault the applicant, but the accused persons/non-applicants did not agree with them. Accordingly, impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the the trial Court as well as appellate Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 10. Upon careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and the findings rendered by the courts below, it is evident that the marriage between the applicant/complainant Sunita Sahu (P.W.1) and accused Chandrakumar was solemnized as per social customs, without any demand for dowry. It has further come on record that 6 the other accused persons were residing separately from the complainant and the accused Chandrakumar. No cogent evidence has been produced to establish that there was any social meeting of both parties in the presence of relatives or village elders. Additionally, the prosecution witnesses, namely Siaram (P.W.4) and Dwarika Prasad (P.W.5), have not supported the allegations of harassment or assault for dowry. Though the complainant has stated that she sustained injuries due to assault, the prosecution has failed to adduce any substantive evidence in this regard. 11.Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the well- reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, as afÏrmed by the appellate Court. The grounds raised by the applicant fail to substantiate any case for interference. 12. Consequently, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and follow up action. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal