.1 2025:CGHC:55569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 795 of 2023 1 - Kishore Kumar Digharaskar S/o Shri Netram Digharaskar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Jagmahant, P.S.- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ratan Bai W/o Shri Netram Dighaaskar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Jagmahant, P.S.- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Netram Digharaskar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Jagmahant, P.S.- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemant Kumar S/o Shri Netram Digharaskar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Jagmahant, P.S.- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sharda Dighraskar W/o Kishore Kumar Digharaskar Aged About 30 Years R/o Jagmahant, Presently Residing At Amruva, Tehsil And Police Station- Saragaon, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Komal Yadav, on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 1 For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. By way of the instant criminal revision, the applicants being .2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.07.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2023, by which the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed by J.M.F.C. Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Case No. 181/2017. 2. In the present case, brief facts of the case are that ;  on 11.05.2014, the complainant was married to the accused, Kishore Kumar Dighraskar, a resident of village Jagmahant, in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies. After marriage, she resided with her husband in the village Jagmahant for about fifteen days. Thereafter, as per custom, she started residing at her parental home in the village Amruwa. In the meantime, her husband took her back to Village Jagmahant and subsequently left for his place of employment. Thereafter, the appellant No. 1, Kishore, used to visit Jagmahant during his holidays at intervals of about three to four months. After about one year of marriage, the accused persons started abusing, insulting, and assaulting the complainant by saying that "you are dark- complexioned and it is shameful to take you out in society." During this period, the complainant's maternal uncles-in-law, namely accused Parsaram Kariyare and .3 Dujararm Kariyare, came to the village Jagmahant and exerted pressure upon her mother-in-law and husband to abandon the complainant and to get accused Kishore remarried. Thereafter, the complainant's mother-in-law, Ratan Bai, demanded a sum of 5,00,000 from the ₹ complainant and pressurized her in that regard. Consequently, the complainant's father gave 4,00,000 ₹ to the accused Kishore Dighraskar. The accused persons continued to demand more money and kept harassing and humiliating the complainant, saying that she had not brought any dowry. A social meeting was convened in respect of the said incident, and an attempt for reconciliation was also made before the family counseling forum. When the harassment continued, the complainant lodged a report against the accused persons at Police Station Nawagarh, on the basis of which Crime No. 77/2017 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.  The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, has acquitted all the applicants from the charges levelled against them vide Judgment dated 10.02.2023 in .4 Criminal Case No. 181/2017.  Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 10.02.2023, the respondent challenged the said order before the learned Sessions Judge Janjgir District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2023. Vide impugned judgment dated 24.07.2023, the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent stating therein that the charges against the applicants No. 1 to 4 stands proved fro committing offence under Section 498(A), 34 of IPC. The Appellate Court directed that the applicants No. 1 to 4 shall undergo R.I. for 6 months each and imposed a find of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of which, the applicants shall undergo 5 days of R.I. Thus, the Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 10.02.2023. Hence this Criminal Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the appellate court has committed error of law in holding that the applicants have committed an o>ence under Section 498(a) of IPC without any express details shares by the respondent. The respondent has failed to prove the date, time or place when she was subjected to cruelty, apart from omnibus allegation that she has been harassed by the applicants in matrimonial home. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned court .5 below has committed grave error of law in concluding that the applicants have demand dowry from the Respondent. It has clearly come in the witness deposition of Respondent and her brother PW- 2-Santosh Kumar that Rs 4,00,000/- (Rs Four Lakh) was demanded to purchase land by the Applicant No.1. Moreover, Applicant no. 1 has returned Rs 1,50,000/- lakh (Rs One Fifty Thousand) in the account of Respondent's father. It shows that applicant never demanded dowry albeit the money was taken against purchase of land which was later returned. The Respondent and her brother PW- 2 has admitted that there is no proof that Rs 4,00,000/- (Rs Four Lakh) was given to the Applicants apart from their oral submission. In absence of any documentary proof, it wrong to conclude that Rs 4,00,000/- was demanded and received by Applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Court below has failed to observe that there is material omission and contradiction in the police statement and statement made before the trial court. The Respondent has failed to disclose in her police statement that Applicant no. 1 physically tortured her by poking needles in the body. This fact was for the Brst came up before the trial court in her witness deposition which make the entire prosecution story doubtful. Therefore he prays that the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 may be set aside/quash. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Chaddha Versus State of Uttar Pradesh .6 reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 563 and Ravi Sharma Vs. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No(s) 410- 411/2015 and Appasaheb and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 9 SCC 721. 7. The State Counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for applicants. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 submits that PW-1), Complainant, in her chief examination, made a speciBc mention of the date 05th April 2016 and expressly named her husband, Kishore, and brothers-in-law Rajesh and Hemant, alleging that all of them together assaulted and abused her. Such a statement, being of a speciBc nature, is found reliable against the said accused persons. The witness also stated that her husband used to torture her by pricking her with a pin, which, considering the nature of the act is a deBnite allegation. Although the fact of pricking with a pin is not mentioned either in the written report or in the police statement, it is not necessary that a person should mechanically narrate every incident in exactly the same manner on all occasions. Variations in testimony are natural, owing to di>erences in time, place, and the person by whom the statement is elicited. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that If there are no material discrepancies or contradictions in the testimony of a witness, his evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, embellishments etc. The distinction between material .7 discrepancies and normal discrepancies are that minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case but material discrepancies do, as held in the matters of:- A. Prabhu Dayal vs State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127, Para-16 &17. B. State of AP vs Pullagummi Kashi Reddy Krishna Reddy, (2018) 7 SCC 623, Para 11. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submits that (PW- 2) stated that an amount of ₹1,50,000/- was transferred by the accused Kishore Kumar from his own account. Though the complainant's father had advanced ₹4,00,000/- to the accused, however the accused had transferred ₹1,50,000/-, and therefore the complainant's father did not return that amount. The necessary ingredients for the o>ence punishable under Section 498A have been established by the prosecution by leading clinching and trustworthy evidence. That, the term "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant further submits that on the basis of the material produced by the prosecution and the evidence led by the complainant, the o>ence has been duly .8 established against the accused persons. These kinds of o>ences generally take place within the four walls of a house and bringing any independent witness in that regard is diIcult. Thus, the conviction of the accused/appellants be maintained and they be punished rigorously. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 13. Furthermore, the evidence on record demonstrates that the amount of ₹4,00,000/- was stated to have been taken for purchasing land, and part of the amount, i.e., ₹1,50,000/-, was subsequently returned by Applicant No.1 to the complainant's father. In absence of any documentary proof establishing that the said payment was a dowry demand, the Bnding of the Appellate Court treating it as such is unsustainable. The learned trial Court had correctly appreciated these aspects and recorded acquittal on the ground that the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. This Court Bnds that the Appellate Court erred in reversing the well- reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. The prosecution evidence, when examined in its entirety, does not inspire the degree of conBdence necessary to record a conviction under Section 498-A IPC. The allegations levelled by the complainant are largely omnibus in nature, lacking speciBc details of date, time, or place of alleged acts of cruelty. The material contradictions and omissions between her police statement and deposition before the .9 trial Court—particularly the omission of the allegation of needle- pricking—render the prosecution story doubtful and unsafe to rely upon for sustaining a conviction. 15. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the Bnding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court Bnds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. 16. The order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with unless there has been grave miscarriage of justice or consideration of the evidence was perverse. Even if two conclusions are possible on basis of the same evidence, the one favourable to the accused has to be taken and it will not be proper for the appellate Court to interfere with the acquittal merely because it may be of a di>erence opinion. Failure to consider admissible evidence or admitting inadmissible evidence are some of the other grounds on which the order of acquittal may be .10 interfered with. In the facts of the present case, none of the circumstances exist presently warranting interference. 17. In revisional jurisdiction, while the scope of interference is limited, this Court is empowered to set aside a conviction where the Bndings of the appellate court are found to be perverse or contrary to established principles of criminal jurisprudence. In the present case, the Appellate Court’s conclusion su>ers from misappreciation of evidence and overlooks vital contradictions that go to the root of the prosecution case. The beneBt of doubt ought to have been extended to the applicants. 18. Accordingly, this Court holds that the judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2023 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The criminal revision is hereby allowed, and the judgment of acquittal dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navagarh in Criminal Case No. 181/2017 is restored. 19. The present Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti