1 2025:CGHC:30483-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 193 of 2025 Poonam Janghel W/o Kishan Janghel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Akoli, Post Barharpur, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (CG). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh- Through Police Station, Mahila Thana, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 2 - Kishan Janghel S/o Ramavtar Janghel Aged About 30 Years 3 - Ramavtar Janghel S/o Late Tharwar Janghel Aged About 52 Years 4 - Puneet Janghel S/o Ramvtar Janghel Aged About 27 Years 5 - Smt. Pukabai Janghel W/o Ramvtar Janghel Aged About 48 Years All R/o Village Parpodi, Tehsil Saja, District Bemetara (CG) 6 - Rajesh Janghel S/o Meenaram Janghel Aged About 36 Years 7 - Seema Janghel W/o Rajesh Janghel Aged About 33 Years Both R/o Village Lolesara, P.S. Parpodi, District Bemetara (CG). 8 - Tomesh Verma W/o Gulshan Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kopedih, P.S. Tumdimod, District Rajnandgaon (CG). -- Respondents For Appellant :Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate appears along with Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.05 11:10:39 +0530 2 Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 04.07.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.11.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.98//2022, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 313/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with respondent No.2-Kishan Janghel on 16.02.2020 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of her marriage, the father of her has given items as per their status, including motorcycle, Led TV, washing machine, etc., and Rs.80,000/- in cash. It is alleged further that after the marriage, the appellant lived happily for 06 months, but thereafter, the respondent No.2/husband, along with the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in- law and sister-in-law started harassing her by taunting that she has brought poor quality of goods and that she did not bring a Car, as demanded. Further prosecution story is that when the appellant visited Government Hospital, Dhamdha on 10.08.2020, an information 3 regarding her pregnancy was given to her by the Doctors and, when the respondent No.2/husband was informed regarding the said fact, he, in turn, forced her to abort the child. It is alleged further that the in-laws of her also started threatening her that they will forcefully abort the child and get the marriage of respondent No2/husband to someone else as she is failing to bring a Car despite several demands being made in this regard. It is alleged further that when the alleged demand was refused by the appellant and her parents, her in-laws along with the husband, locked her on 23.09.2020 in a room and held her legs and hands and administered her the abortion pills by force, owing to which, miscarriage was led on 24.09.2020. It is alleged further that on 14.03.2021, her husband got a job at Ambagarh Chowki and started harassing her in order to give him divorce and upon refusal, he started beating her, as a result of which, she sustained injury below her left eye. It is alleged further that the respondent No.2/husband along with the in-laws have separated the room of her and asked for 5 acres of land and, in view of the alleged demand made by her in-laws illegally, she informed her father, owing to which, a meeting was convened on 29.07.2021 and the people of the society were of the opinion that the in-laws of her were at fault and were directed to treat the appellant well, but despite of it, the behavior of theirs’ was not changed and were still harassing and maltreating her. It is alleged further that on 23.08.2021, when the appellant’s family came to her husband’s house, the in-laws made certain demand, to which, the father told that it is not possible to be fulfilled, as a result of which, the appellant was sent with her parents 4 and a meeting was thereafter convened on 29.08.2021 in village Parpodi, wherein, the respondent No.2/husband stated that he wanted a divorce from her and does not want to live with her and thereafter, a counselling was carried out in Mahila Thana, Durg, but all the efforts were failed, which compelled her to lodge the report before the Mahila Thana, Sector-6, Bhilai on 06.09.2021 vide Ex.P-1 and upon its enquiry, an FIR was registered on 02.02.2022 vide Ex. P-2 against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498- A, 313 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in connection with Crime No.7/2022 and, after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where, the charges have been framed against them under Sections 498-A/34 and 313/34 of IPC, which were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents, while none was examined by the respondents, but have produced as many as 4 documents in their defence, which were got exhibited through the Investigating Officer. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the appellant was maltreated and harassed by her in-laws on 5 account of the alleged demand and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife of respondent No.2- Kishan Janghel. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the appellant and her parents, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them from commission of the alleged crime and, during the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant is not pressing the allegations based upon which, the respondents have been charge-sheeted under Section 313/34 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State has supported the aforesaid contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant/wife. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the appellant- Poonam Janghel was solemnized with respondent No.2- Kishan Janghel on 16.02.2020 and based upon the allegations as were levelled by the appellant, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 313/34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, after 06 months of the 6 marriage, the appellant was harassed and maltreated on account of demand of a Car and 5 acres of land. In order to establish the alleged fact, the appellant/wife, who was examined as PW-1, has stated that the respondents were telling that her parents have not given them a Car and also demanded 5 acres of land and, stated further that on account of its non-fulfillment, she was harassed and maltreated by them and, it reveals further from her testimony that she is living separately from her husband since 23.08.2021 and when the meeting was convened on 24.09.2021, her husband has refused to keep her along with him. 9. Mother of the appellant, namely, Smt. Devasiya Verma (PW-2) has stated in her deposition that her daughter was being harassed and maltreated because of not providing a Car and that for giving an inferior quality of goods, but has not stated anywhere that 5 acres of land was demanded by them as alleged by the appellant/wife against her husband and in-laws. 10. Insofar as the statement of father of the appellant, namely, Krishna Kumar Verma (PW-3) is concerned, it appears that since a Car and 5 acres of land was not provided despite of their demand and as the inferior quality of goods were given, therefore, his daughter was being harassed and maltreated by them, but the alleged fact was, however, not disclosed by him when the meeting was convened on 29.08.2021, as revealed from para 19 of his testimony. 11. It, thus, appears from a bare perusal of the aforesaid evidence that 7 there is disparity in their testimonies pertaining to the demand, as the mother in her statement has, however, not stated anywhere that 5 acres of land was demanded by them and the father (PW-3) of the appellant has not disclosed the alleged fact in the meeting held on 29.08.2021, for the reasons best known to him. 12. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the statement of appellant’s father-Krishna Kumar Verma (PW-3), particularly paragraph 11 of his evidence, that a consent letter was executed between him and the father of respondent No.2, namely, Ramavtar Janghel, where it was agreed that they (respondents) will give 10 acres of land to his daughter in ‘gift’ and it appears further from paragraph 12 of his testimony that a ‘gift deed’ was executed by his daughter’s mother-in- law, namely, Pukabai Janghel on 24.03.2022 gifting to his daughter 3.41 hectares of land and the said fact was also reflected from the statement of the appellant (PW-1) and her mother, namely, Smt. Devasiya Verma (PW-2). It, thus, appears that although, the allegations were made by the appellant that she was being harassed and maltreated on account of not providing 5 acres of land, but it was, however, reflected from the statement of her and her parents’ that in fact, approximately 10 acres of land was given to her by her mother-in- law by executing a ‘gift deed’ dated 24.03.2022. The alleged allegation of demand of 5 acres of land, thus, appears to be a false and frivolous of theirs’ and cannot be held to be sustainable in view of the aforesaid evidence of the appellant and her parents. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that she was harassed or maltreated on account of the alleged 8 demand, as alleged by the appellant in her written complaint, lodged on 06.09.2021. 13. It is to be seen further that prior to lodging the alleged report (Ex.P-1) by the appellant/wife, her husband was in apprehension that she might be lodging false allegations not only against him, but also against his parents and, therefore, as a precautionary measure, a report (Ex.D-3) was lodged by him before the Mahila Thana, Section-6, Bhilai on 01.09.2021 and the alleged apprehension of him was found to be corroborated by the act of the appellant as she lodged the alleged written report (Ex. P-1) on 06.09.2021. 14. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita