1 2025:CGHC:4268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 155 of 2015 1 - Shweta Sharma W/o Nagesh Sharma, aged about 35 years, R/o L-15, Krishna Nagar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Nagesh Sharma, S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 23 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Prahallad Sharma S/o Late Bhuwan Lal Sharma, aged about 58 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Vimal Sharma W/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 50 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Shailendra Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 5 - Rupesh Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 2 6 - State of Chhattisgarh, through SHO Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, on behalf of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate. For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. ACQA No. 80 of 2017 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Nagesh Sharma, S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 23 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Prahallad Sharma S/o Late Bhuwan Lal Sharma, aged about 58 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Vimal Sharma W/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 50 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Shailendra Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). 5 - Rupesh Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondents 3 For State/Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23.01.2025 1. Since the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals are similar, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These present acquittal appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 25.02.2015 passed by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2011, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal of respondents/accused persons and set aside the judgment dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Cases No. 390/2010, whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and under Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant Shweta Sharma to respondent No. 1- Nagesh Sharma was solemnized on 04.05.2005 and the other accused persons/respondents are the father, mother and brothers of respondent No. 1. It is alleged by the complainant that after the marriage of complainant, all accused persons demanded car and other articles and tortured her. On 21.11.2005 in the night, the respondents took her on the terrace and beaten her and thereby made an attempt to make her fall down from the terrace. The husband/respondent No. 1 has also caused abortion of the complainant/appellant. On 22.11.2005, the mother of the 4 appellant brought complainant from Pune to Raipur and at Raipur she lodged report at Mahila Thana under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned trial Court passed judgment on 22.12.2010 and convicted all the appellants under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Against this judgment dated 22.12.2010, the accused persons/respondents filed appeal before the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) vide impugned judgment dated 25.02.2015 and the learned appellate Court allowed their appeal and acquitted them of the said charges. Hence, the present acquittal appeals filed by the appellant/complainant Shweta Sharma in ACQA No. 155 of 2015 and ACQA 80/2017 filed by the appellant/State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submits that the learned trial Court rightly convicted the respondents. The complainant and the other witnesses have categorically stated against the respondents, but the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and rightly convicted the accused persons/respondents, but the learned appellate Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and wrongly acquitted the accused persons/respondents. So, the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is bad, improper and against the law, as well as facts of the case. As such, this judgment is liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be restored. 5 5. Reliance has been placed on the decision of The Public Prosecutor, High Court of….. Vs. Veldend Jaya Prakash reported in 1997 CRILJ196. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned appellate Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the accused persons/respondents. Therefore, these appeals are without any merit and the same are liable to dismissed. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it 6 must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court and the record of the learned Appellate Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the respondents/accused persons under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Against this judgment the accused persons/respondents filed an appeal before the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) vide impugned judgment dated 25.02.2015 and the learned appellate Court allowed their appeal and acquitted them of the said charges. 10. Before the learned trial Court, the complainant Shweta Sharma (PW- 01) stated in her examination-in-chief that all the accused persons tortured her for car and other articles to which they have demanded as a dowry. On 23.12.2005, her husband took her to the terrace and beaten her and tried to push her down from the terrace and forcefully committed abortion to her. The complainant’s mother brought her back to Raipur from Pune and then she lodged F.I.R vide Ex. P/02 and she also filed written complaint Ex. P/01 and documents of her daughter’s treatment regarding abortion. 11.The learned appellate Court finds that in cross-examination of the complainant, she admitted that at the time of engagement and marriage, there was no demand for dowry made by the accused persons/respondents. The learned appellate Court has minutely 7 appreciated the statement of the complainant (PW-01) Shweta Sharma and her mother Sushma Tiwari (PW-02) and her brother Vikas Tiwari (PW-03) and finds that there are major contradictions in the statements of all witnesses, the learned appellate Court also appreciated the statements of defence witness Maniram Sharma (DW-01) and finds that statement of prosecution witnesses are not reliable and also finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons/respondents and allowed their appeal. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; 8 (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 13. In the light of above judgment, it is clear that the learned appellate Court considered all grounds of appeal and also minutely appreciated statements of all witnesses and also appreciated the documents filed by the prosecution, rightly allowed the appeal of the accused persons/respondents. 14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the cases, the finding recorded by learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, as such, the same does not want any interference by this Court. These appeals are bereft of any merit and the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Uttej