Acquittal appeal by wife against appellate court's acquittal of her husband's family convicted under Section 498A/34 IPC and Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratarna Adhiniyam. Court found appellate findings possible, noted belated FIR and no specific dowry demand, dismissed appeal at motion stage.
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 ACQA No. 222 of 2015
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Satyprakash Sahu S/o Chamaru Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years
2. Chamaru Ram Sahu S/o Puranik Sahu Aged About 63 Years
3. Bhojwati Sahu W/o Chamaru Ram Sahu Aged About 53 Years
4. Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Gayaram Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Matrodih, Tah. And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh
5. Radheshyam Sahu S/o Gayaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Jogidipa P.S. Fingeshwar, Tah. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (Wrongly Mentioned As Durg)
6. Bhan Bai S/o Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dundera, P.S. Utai, Tah. And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh
7. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
12.01.2024
1. At the outset, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no contact with the appellant since long and he has no instruction about the continuation
2
of the case.
2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the State, I have examined the record for considering on admission.
3. The Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.05.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.169/2014 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G) arising out of judgment dated 17.06.2014 in Criminal Case No.545/2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G) whereby respondent No.1 to 4 have been convicted under Section 498 A/34 of the IPC and sentenced to under go RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.300 each with usual default stipulations, whereas, all the respondents even convicted under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratarna Adhiniyam, 2005 and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each with usual default stipulations. Apart from that accused Bhan Bai and Radhe Shyam have also been convicted under Sections 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratarna Adhiniyam, 2005 and each of them has been sentenced to under go RI for 2 years and RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.300 and Rs.500 respectively with usual default stipulations. On appeal preferred by the respondents/accused persons before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, the same was allowed and the respondents/accused were acquitted of the aforesaid charges.
4. Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.04.2009, marriage of
3
complainant Sashikala Sahu and respondent No.1 was solemnized as per the social rituals. She is a graduate lady. She has lodged an FIR (Ex-P/1) on 24.11.2009 at P.S Utai, District- Durg alleging that at the time of the marriage, her father has given dowry as per his capabilities and did not give two wheeler. After the marriage, she started residing with her husband at Virath Nagar, P.S Utai and thereafter she came to her parental house at Milpara, Durg for appearing in the examination which was scheduled on 03.05.2009 and 04.05.2009. Suddenly, her husband in his Maruti Car brought her back and thereafter her mother-in-law (respondent No.3), father-in-law (respondent No.2) and grand-father-in-law ( Nana Sasur) respondent No.4 along with respondent No.6 Bhan Bai ( Baigin- a lady who used to practice witchcraft), R/O Dundera P.S Utai District- Durg had taken the complainant to Village- Jogidipa in the house of respondent No.5 ( Baiga- a person who practices witchcraft for curing) and they made allegations against the complainant that she was Tonhi and she practices witchcraft respondent No.5 further identified the complainant and her whole family as tonhi . Thereafter, respondent No.1 to 4 started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry and her husband abused her in filthy language. When the complainant informed such fact to her father (PW-2), his maternal uncle (PW-4) and brother (PW-3), then his father called a social
4
meeting. In such meeting, Gokaran Sahu (PW-5) was present and the meeting was convened at Virath Nagar, P.S Utai. It has been alleged that 15 days prior to lodging of the FIR, her husband took her to the rented house at Village- Dundera and in such house, the cruelty was continued. It has been further alleged that prior to the marriage, her husband was having illicit relation with his close relative, niece of maternal aunt namely, Umeshwari Sahu and her husband several times told her that he would continue that relationship and on such account her husband used to beat her. On the date of lodging of the FIR also, a quarrel took place. Based on such information, the offence has been registered. During the investigation, the list of dowry articles which was given at the time of the marriage (Ex-P/2) was prepared and the same were seized vide (Ex-P/3). Statement of the witnesses were recorded.
5. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and during trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. The respondents/accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Respondent No.1 has taken a specific defence that he himself has lodged the FIR against his wife and her father and to save themselves from such report, a false case has
5
been registered. In the defence, 3 witnesses were examined.
7. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has convicted the respondent/accused as mentioned at para-1 of this judgment, against which the respondents/accused preferred an appeal which was allowed by the impugned judgment, hence this Appeal by the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that after passing the judgment dated 17.06.2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, a material development took place and the complainant/wife and respondent No.1 had preferred an application for mutual divorce on 30.04.2015 under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which, they have given an undertaking that they would not continue with their marriage and a final settlement has been arrived and then allowing such application against 3rd Additional Principle Judge Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.634 A/2014 granted decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage which was solemnized on 14.04.2009 and the said fact was noticed by the learned Appellate Court and mentioned in the impugned judgment at para-31. She would further submit that against the finding of the Appellate Court, the State has not preferred any Appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.
6
10. Admittedly, the marriage of respondent No.1 and complainant was solemnized on 14.04.2009 and prior to 15 days of lodging of the FIR respondent No.1 and the appellant were living in a separate rented house at VillageDundera. Father of complainant Dushyant Kumar (PW-2) in his cross-examination, at para-12, categorically admits that respondent No.1 has earlier lodged a report against him. Thereafter, the present FIR has been lodged. He further admits that had he not beaten the respondent No.1, he would not have lodged the report against them. He further admits that the complainant has made character assassination against her husband for having illicit relation with Umeshwari Sahu, as she is the sister of her husband/respondent No.1. After the marriage, father of the complainant has also raised objection that both brother and sister should not take meal in a single plate. This reflects the state of mind of the father of the complainant. Even the wife in her cross-examination, at para- 42, categorically admits that had her father not assaulted her husband, she would continue to reside at her in-laws house, though she denied that her husband has lodged an FIR against her father. She has also lodged the FIR and roped them in a false case. But, admittedly, after the marriage, till happening of the incident in the rented house with the father, no such complaint has been made.
11. For an incident, wherein respondent No.1 to 4 took the
7
complainant to the house of respondent No.5, and on the way, they also picked up respondent No.6 Bhan Bai, and thereafter, it was also discovered that the complainant and her family is practicing witchcraft, Tonhi and cruelty was started by respondent No.1 to 4, the complainant being a well educated lady and her father was also a peon in the office of the SDM, did not make any complaint and the FIR has been lodged belatedly after more than 6 months.
12. Even in the FIR, there is no averments about specific demand. Considering that the complainant has raised an issue about the manner and behaviour of her husband with her cousin Umeshwari and she raised objection against their relation, even though she stated that immediately after the marriage she noticed the said fact, and even the husband also used to come to her house for several times and at the material time, he has also taken a separated house, the allegation of demand of dowry is not believable.
13. Even otherwise, in the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 , in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal, the following was observed vide para 25 :
“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 termed 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
8
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 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
14. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Court is a possible one.
15. The Acquittal Appeal is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priyanka
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal appeal against reversal of convictions for cruelty and witchcraft-related offences should be admitted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jafarudheen Vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶13
Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Smt. Shashikala Sahu
Satyprakash Sahu
Chamaru Ram Sahu
Bhojwati Sahu
Mohan Lal Sahu
Radheshyam Sahu
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
