Dismissed¶32

State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Shobha Rajput

Chhattisgarh HC7 May 2025ACQA/237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 237 of 2025; decided 08/05/2025 by Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; State's acquittal appeal against acquittal under Section 294 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Special Criminal Case No.29/2021, judgment dated 12.06.2024) dismissed; delay in filing condoned; mutual abuse at time of incident, enmity and probability of false implication; trial Court's acquittal affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Application I.A. No.01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay is condoned. ¶18

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt. Shobha Rajput — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the respondent/accused recorded by the trial Court warrants interference, the State contending that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.

¶26

Court's answer

There is clear enmity between the complainant's husband and the respondent/accused, and consequently a probability of false implication.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Application I.A. No.01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶18

Key takeaways

Since at the time of the incident both parties abused each other, the offence under Section 294 of the IPC is not made out.ratio¶31
No good ground exists to take a different view from the trial Court; the finding recorded by the trial Court is affirmed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 237 of 2025) by the State of Chhattisgarh against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.29/2021, whereby the respondent/accused, stepmother-in-law of the complainant, was acquitted of the charge under Section 294 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly abusing the complainant in the name of her caste near Jagannath Hospital, Raipur on 28.12.2020 and threatening to break her marriage. Delay in filing condoned (I.A. No.01/2025). The High Court noted that PW-2 deposed that whenever there was a quarrel both the complainant and the accused abused each other, PW-4 turned hostile, and PW-5 admitted in cross-examination that the complainant's husband had been arrested/detained in a case under Section 307 IPC for assaulting the accused. Finding clear enmity and a probability of false implication, and holding that since both parties abused each other at the time of the incident the offence under Section 294 IPC was not made out, the Court affirmed the trial Court's finding and dismissed the appeal.

2025:CGHC:21329

NAFR

PRIYANKA VERMA

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.05.09 16:48:48 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

ACQA No. 237 of 2025

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJK Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

Smt. Shobha Rajput W/o Late Shri Dhansingh Rajput Aged About 55 Years R/o Street No. 3 Vrindavan Colony Changorabhata, DD Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellant/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

08/05/2025

¶17

1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing of instant Appeal.

¶18

2. Considering the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶19

¶20

3. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.29/2021, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 294 of the IPC read with Section 3 (1) (r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter.

¶21

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.02.2021, complainant Romali Shendey filed a written complaint (Ex-P/1) before Deputy Superintendent of Police SC/ST, District Raipur stating that she belongs to the Mahar Scheduled Caste and is posted as an Assistant Engineer at Nagar Nigam, Raipur, Zone No. 9. She solemnized love marriage with Divyendra Thakur on 23.06.2020. The respondent/accused is the stepmother-in-law. She further averred that after the marriage, on 28.12.2020 at about 5:45 hours, the respondent/accused abused her in the name of her caste and insulted her near Jagannath Hospital at Raipura while she was returning from office to her house. The respondent/accused along with 3 to 4 boys, abused and threatened the complainant to break her marriage with Divyendra Thakur. Based on the aforesaid information, on 25.03.2021, an FIR was registered vide Ex-P/6. During the investigation, a caste certificate (Ex-P/4) of the complainant was seized vide Ex-P/3. The spot map was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

¶22

5. During the trial, the respondent/accused abjured her guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as

¶23

¶24

8 witnesses. Respondent in her statement stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶25

6. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Appeal.

¶26

7. At the outset, learned counsel for State/appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, therefore, he prays to allow the Appeal.

¶27

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

9. Admittedly, the complainant solemnized love marriage with Divyendra Thakur and the respondent/accused is her stepmother-in-law. The complainant (PW-1) deposed that after the marriage, the respondent/accused, in the name of her caste, always insulted her and also demanded dowry of Rs.10 lakhs. She also used to threaten her that if she did not bring the said amount, she would break her marriage with Divyendra Thakur.

¶29

10. Jyoti Rajput (PW-2) categorically deposed that whenever there was any quarrel, both the complainant and the respondent/accused abused each other. Hemant Singh Rajput (PW-4) turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he had not seen any such incident. Rahul Singh Rajput (PW-5) further admits at para-6 of his cross-examination that the husband of the complainant was arrested/detained in a case under Section 307 of the IPC since he assaulted the respondent/accused.

¶30

¶31

11. In the aforesaid backdrop of the case, it is vivid that there is a clear enmity between the husband and wife and the respondent/accused and there is a probability of false implication. Further, at the time of the incident, both abused each other, therefore, the offence under Section 294 of the IPC would not be made out. This Court does not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court is affirmed.

¶32

12. Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶35

Priyanka

State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Shobha Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Shobha Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz Vs Bhuneshwar Prasad Dadsena

Yogesh Valryani Vs B.G. Enterprises

Reshamlal Bajpayee Vs Rajendra Kumar Khande

M/S Nai Duniya Vs Mayank Soni

Shivganga Agency Vs Santosh Kumar Singh

Harish @ Harshit @ Lalu Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh