This revision petition challenges an acquittal order affirmed by the Sessions Judge in a Section 498A/34 IPC case. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Dismissal of the revision petition as there are no grounds for interfering with the acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on : 28.8.2023.
Delivered on : 12th September, 2023.
CRR No. 689 of 2016
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-Applicants/Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Shri Shikhar Sharma and Ku. Prachi Singh, Advocates For Respondents : None present.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
CAV Judgment
1. Challenge in this revision is the judgment dated 29.4.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.267/2015, whereby judgment of acquittal of the
2
respondents/accused from the offence under Section 498A/34 of IPC, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.203/2013 vide judgment dated 26.11.2015 has been affirmed.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that, marriage of the applicant and non-applicant No.6/Mahesh Dewangan was solemnized on 06.02.2013 according to the Hindu customs. After the marriage, family members of the husband started harassing her on account of bringing low quality articles/dowry. Even the non-applicants have not allowed the applicant to continue her studies. When the applicant became pregnant, the non-applicants called her father, abused and threatened him and also thrown the applicant out of the house after being termed characterless. Since then the applicant is living in her parental house and in the meantime, she suffered miscarriage. Aggrieved by the harassment of the family of the husband, the applicant made a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Raipur, upon which counselling was conducted between the applicant and non-applicants but when the counseling failed, Mahila Thana, Raipur registered FIR against the non-applicants under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. After investigation, the nonapplicants were arrested and statement of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter charge sheet was filed against them for aforesaid offence in the concerned Court. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 498A/34 IPC and read and explained the same to the non-applicants, who abjured the guilt.
3
3. In order to bring home the above-stated offences, the prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The non-applicants were examined under Section 313 CrPC in which they denied the adverse circumstances appearing against them in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The non-applicants have stated that they are innocent.
4. The non-applicants examined one defence witness Bodhan Prasad (DW-1) in their defence and exhibited one document.
5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, acquitted the non-applicants/ accused from the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC vide order dated 26.11.2015. In appeal preferred by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Raipur, vide judgment dated 29.4.2016, judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court has been affirmed hence, this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant/victim would submit that the applicant has specifically deposed in her court statement that after the marriage, family members of her husband/nonapplicants used to abuse and harass her on account of bringing low quality articles/dowry and they also used to tell her that instead of bringing low quality articles, money would have been given to them. She also deposed that family of her husband abused her father over phone and also told him that your daughter is as bad as the article he had given during marriage. Even they did not allow her to continue her studies. When she
4
become pregnant, they used to tease her and doubted her character. When the father of the applicant reached her matrimonial house to resolve the dispute between them, family members of her husband/non-applicants abused him and also ousted him by pushing and also demanded Rs.5 lakh for purchasing new furniture. It is also submitted that due to mental harassment meted out to the applicant, she suffered miscarriage. It is further stated by learned counsel for the applicant that deposition of the applicant has been supported by her brother Bhanu Pratap Dewangan (PW-2), her father Manharanlal Dewangan (PW-3). He would further submit that Bodhan Prasad (DW-1), who is the defence witness in this case in support of accused persons, in para 8 stated that at the instance of accused persons he came before the court to give his statement and at their instance he is giving false statement before the Court. This witness further deposed in para 11 that the applicant is his distant relative, he is not having good relationship with parents of the applicant. Despite that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court acquitted the accused/non-applicants only on the grounds that there are contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution witnesses including the applicant, appear to have made very exaggerated statement regarding the incident, the applicant stayed only few days i.e. one month ten days, in her matrimonial house and though there was an allegation of harassment on account of dowry against the respondents/ accused, but neither the applicant nor any other
5
prosecution witnesses have clearly stated about the type and time of torture done by each of the accused to the applicant. However, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that revision may be allowed and the respondents/accused may be convicted.
7 . I have heard, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the evidence of the applicant, other witnesses and also the record would show that statement of the prosecution witnesses appear to be doubtful as their court statements have been improved or changed. The cause of dispute has been stated to be in relation to the low quality of articles given during marriage, whereas there was no statement of demand of dowry during that period. The statement of demand of dowry has been included by improvement which has been unbelievable because it is newly added. Apart from this, the reason for actual dispute as has been presented by the non-applicants is the applicant’s love affair with some other person. In this regard even there is no rebuttal to the statement of Bodhan Prasad (DW-1) that the applicant told him that she was in love affair with another person. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Upon minute examination of the evidence of the applicant and other witnesses, this court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety for acquitting the respondent/accused and also the appellate Court
6
has not committed any error while affirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
9. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [2007 (4) SCC 415], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Para 42 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
7
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
11. In view of the above discussion and view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground for interference in the matter. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE
Bini
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 498A/34 IPC despite contradictions in prosecution witness statements.
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents based on doubtful prosecution evidence and lack of specific torture details.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶38
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [2007 (4) SCC 415] · Who else cites this
Smt. Gayatri Dewangan
Dharmendra Dewangan
Munni Bai Dewangan
Neetu @ Nirmala Dewangan
Dayalu Ram Dewangan
Santosh Dewangan
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
