Dismissed¶¶40

Durgesh Nandani v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC15 Oct 2025ACQA/350/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court acquittal appeal dismissed — ACQA No. 350 of 2019, decided 16/10/2025 by Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi. Complainant's appeal against acquittal of husband and in-laws (respondents 2–5) under Sections 498-A/34 & 328 IPC (Sessions Case No. 59/2017, judgment dt. 16.11.2018) dismissed; acquittal held plausible with no illegality or infirmity; dowry-harassment allegations vague, omnibus and discrepant; poisoning-in-tonic allegation unsupported by medical evidence (PW-5 Dr. Jai Tiwari, PW-7 Dr. R.D. Sharma). Keywords: 498-A IPC, 328 IPC, dowry, acquittal appeal, plausible view, no interference, Durg.

What did the court decide?

The allegations of torture levelled by the victim in her written complaint were something different from the allegations levelled by her in her court statement. ¶¶32

Durgesh Nandani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 5 by the trial Court was perverse to the evidence and material available on record and required interference in this acquittal appeal. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court; it is a plausible one and no interference is required with the findings recorded by the said Court.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

The allegations of torture levelled by the victim in her written complaint were something different from the allegations levelled by her in her court statement.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The acts of harassment alleged against respondents No. 2 to 5 in the written complaint and court statements of the victim and her brother were found to be suffering from various discrepancies.ratio¶¶37
The allegations levelled against respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons were vague and omnibus in nature.ratio¶¶37
As regards the broken mobile allegedly given by the victim's brother, neither witness stated when the incident occurred and the mobile was never seized.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No. 350 of 2019 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 16/10/2025, Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi): Acquittal appeal by the complainant against the judgment dated 16.11.2018 of the Second Upper Sessions Judge, Durg (Sessions Case No. 59/2017) acquitting her husband Jagannath Mahobiya and three in-laws (respondents No. 2 to 5) of offences under Sections 498-A/34 and 328 IPC. Marriage solemnized on 30.4.2015; written complaint (Annexure P-2) and FIR (Ex. P-1) at PS Kotwali, Durg alleged dowry harassment and administration of poisonous substance mixed in tonic (dated 29.01.2016 per the complaint). Held: the allegations of torture in the written complaint were something different from those in the court statement; the harassment allegations suffered from various discrepancies and were vague and omnibus; the poisoning allegation was not proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Jai Tiwari (PW-5) and Dr. R.D. Sharma (PW-7) nor otherwise established from the prosecution evidence; the trial Court's acquittal was a plausible one with no illegality or infirmity, requiring no interference. The acquittal appeal was dismissed as devoid of substance, and the record of the courts below was ordered to be returned forthwith.

2025:CGHC:51623

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 350 of 2019

¶6

Durgesh Nandani Shri Jagannath Aged About 30 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Polsai Para, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Others Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Jagannath Mahobiya S/o Narayan Prasad Mahobiya R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Narayan Prasad Mahobiya S/o Late Mangaluram Mangaluram Mahobiya Aged About 67 Years R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Nanhi Bai Mahobiya W/o Narayan Prasad Mahobiya Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Poonam Mahobiya W/o Vishwanath Mahobiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

( Cause title, as taken from CIS )

¶15

For Appellant	: Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, PL
For Respondents No. 2 to 5	: Nonepresent.

¶16

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

16/10/2025

¶20

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Second Upper Sessions Judge, Durg to the Court of First Upper Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 59/2017 whereby respondents No. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and Section 328 of the IPC.

¶21

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the marriage of appellant / complainant – Smt. Durgesh Nandani was solemnized with respondent No. 2/accused – Jagannath Mahobia on 30.4.2015. After sometime of of marriage, respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons started harrassing her physically & mentally in connection with demand of dowry. It is also alleged that they administered her poisonous substance mixed in tonic, therefore, she fainted, hence, she was taken to District Hospital, Durg from where she was taken to Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai where she got admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in critical condition. The appellant/complainant filed written complaint (Annexure P-2) against the respondents/accused persons. Based on which, FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged in Police Station Kotwali, Durg, District Durg. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Jai Tiwari (PW-5) vide MLC report (Ex.P-6). Bed head ticket of victim and other medical documents were also seized from Sparsh Hospital, Durg as well as District Hospital Durg. Respondents No. 2 to 5/accused were arrested.

¶22

¶23

After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 328 of the IPC was filed against the respondents/accused persons.

¶24

Learned Upper Sessions Judge, Durg framed charges for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC against respondents No. 3 to 5/ accused persons whereas charge under Sections 498-A/34 & 328 of IPC against respondent No. 2, who is husband of the complainant. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial.

¶25

In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Statement of the respondents No. 2 to 5 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. They did not examine any witnesses in support of their defence.

¶26

Learned trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2018, acquitted respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons of the alleged offences. Against which, instant appeal has been preferred.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant/victim would submit that after two months of the marriage, respondents/accused persons started harrassing complainant in connection with demand of dowry and they have also administered her poisonous substance mixed in tonic, as a result thereof, she was fainted, hence, she was admitted in hospital for about six days, which has been proved by oral & documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, despite that learned trial Court

¶28

¶29

has acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons of the alleged charges, which is perverse to the evidence & material available on record, hence, he prayed that the appeal may be admitted for hearing.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the State has not filed appeal against the said judgment of acquittal.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses including victim (PW-2) and her brother (PW-4) along with their two neighbours. As per written complaint (Ex.P-2) of victim, after about two months of marriage of respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons started harrassing her in connection with demand of dowry and when she informed this fact to her parents, then again respondents/ accused persons manhandled her and on 29.01.2016, her husband (respondent No. 2) administered her poisonous substance mixed in tonic, therefore, she was admitted in hospital. But in her deposition, she has exaggerated the allegations by saying that her husband used to show her knife and mobile given by her brother was also broken by her husband (respondent No. 2). Her mother-in-law used to taunt her about the articles given by her parents at the time of marriage. She has further alleged that costly saree given to her in marriage were distributed by her mother-in-law to her daughters. Thus, allegations of torture levelled by victim in her written complaint is something different from the allegations levelled by her in her court statement.

¶33

¶34

Though, brother of the victim (PW-4) has stated in his deposition that he had given mobile to her sister {victim (PW-2)}, which was broken by her husband (respondent No. 2/accused), but as and when that incident occurred, has not been stated by both the witnesses and such mobile has also not been seized. This witness has stated that respondent No. 2- Jagannath Mahobiya and his parents had demanded money from them to construct the house, but this has neither been stated by victim in her written complaint nor in her court statement.

¶35

The allegations levelled against respondent No. 2/husband that he had given poisonous substance mixed in tonic to the complainant are not proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Jai Tiwari (PW-5) as well as Dr. R.D. Sharma (PW-7).

¶36

Vinod Kaser (PW-1) and Arun Kumar Gupta (PW-2) are friends of brother of victim. Though, they have stated that victim was got admitted in District Hospital, subsequently, in Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai, but from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is not found to be proved that complainant was administered poisonous substance mixed in tonic.

¶37

The act of harrassment alleged against respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons in written complaint and court statements of victim and her brother are found to be suffering from various discrepancies. Allegation levelled against the respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons are vague and omnibus in nature and no speci昀椀c date of alleged physical harrassment has been stated by victim.

¶38

¶39

In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court.

¶40