1 2025:CGHC:23112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 114 of 2017 Sunil Kumar Jangde S/o Manmohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. 52/92, Police Colony, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. , ... Appellant versus Smt. Manju Jangde W/o Sunil Jangde, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No. 52/92, Police Colony, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o At Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal procedure assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 229/2014, whereby the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant/appellant filed a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.12 14:24:28 +0530 2 complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for registering the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 380, 497, 507 of Indian Penal Code, against 8 persons, including the respondent/accused. Marriage of complainant was solemnized on 06.05.1998 with Manju Jangde (respondent) and after marriage, she was residing with the appellant and out of their wedlock, one son namely Bhanu Pratap Singh, who is presently aged about 10 years, was born. Complainant/ appellant used to go on his duty sometime in the day and sometime in the night and at that time, her wife Manju Jangde and son Bhanu Pratap used to stay at home. When the appellant used to go on his duty, his wife Manju Jangde used to call her paramour i.e. accused/respondent herein and developed physical relations with him. When the son of appellant, namely, Bhanu Pratap came to know about the illicit relation of Manju Jangde and respondent, then the respondent threatened him to kill. It is further submitted by the appellant that one day, the appellant had caught raid handed to the respondent and co-accused Surendra Khandekar in objectionable condition and thereafter the appellant came to aware about phone call and pornography between the co-accused and Manju Jangde. It was further alleged by the complainant that he had made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on which call details of mobile No. 9329719793, 917450799, 9098155121 and 7817222098, belongs to respondent were verified and found that the respondent has talked with the wife of complainant in the long periods. Complainant called a social meeting, in which, his wife was advised not to behave like this. The said Manju Jangde threatened the complainant/appellant for implicating him in false case and thereafter she stole golden ornaments and cash Rs. 75,000/- and went to her 3 parental house. The complainant taken back his wife, but she again went to her parental home along with remaining household articles. Thereby the respondent has committed the aforesaid offences. After recording preliminary statement of complainant and his witnesses, the trial Court registered the case and framed the charges under Sections 324 and 506 part II of I.P.C. against the respondent, however also registered the case and framed the charge under Section 497 of IPC against the co-accused Surendra Khandekar and thereafter after recording statement of appellant and his witnesses, the trial Court found the respondent guilty of offence under Section 324 and 506 part II of I.P.C. and sentence her R.I. for 4-4 months with fine of Rs. 500/- 500/-, in default of payment of fine 15-15 days (total 1 month) additional R.I. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Appellate Court is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the material evidence available on record, therefore it is liable to be set-aside. The learned Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well reasoned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court on 17.11.2014. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the documents and evidences produced before it in its correct perspective. He also submits that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the co-accused Surendra Khandekar knowing fully well that the respondent Smt. Manju Jangde is the wife of appellant, had developed physical relation with her, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the respondent under Section 324 and 506 Part II of IPC. The findings recorded by the Appellate court is bad in 4 law, perverse, erroneous and contrary to the material available on record, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Appellate Court and further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court which needs no interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents and other material available on record. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant/appellant alleged a single incident where his son was stabbed with a hot knife by the respondent/accused. However, the complainant did not witness the incident and based his testimony on information provided by his son, Bhanu Pratap. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that Banu Partap informed him about the beatings and stabbing with the knife, but Bhanu Partab did not appear as a witness after charges were framed. Consequently, the complainant’s testimony regarding Bhanu Pratap’ injury is based solely on hearsay evidence. Moreover, he has stated that his son was medically examined by a doctor, but he has not produced any medical certificate or treatment record in this case. The medical record was the best evidence, on the basis of which it can be ascertained that his son Bhanu Partap had injuries on his abdomen on the given date, but same was withheld by the complainant, so, it will be safe to presume that his statement regarding injuries of Bhanu Partap is not correct. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4820 of 2007, titled as Kalyan Kumar Gogoi 5 versus Ashutosh Agnihotri and another, decided on 18-01-2011 has held that the hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, this Court is of view that mere hearsay evidence of complainant is not sufficient to maintain the conviction of appellant under Section 324 IPC. In view thereof, the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent/accused from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. Consequently, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is, thus, dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti