1 2025:CGHC:21329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 237 of 2025 • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJK Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Appellant versus • 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) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 08/05/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing of instant Appeal. 2. Considering the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.05.09 16:48:48 +0530 2 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. 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. 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 3 8 witnesses. Respondent in her statement stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case. 6. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Appeal. 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. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 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. 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. 4 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. 12.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka