1 2025:CGHC:51623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 350 of 2019 Durgesh Nandani Shri Jagannath Aged About 30 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Polsai Para, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Others Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jagannath Mahobiya S/o Narayan Prasad Mahobiya R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Narayan Prasad Mahobiya S/o Late Mangaluram Mangaluram Mahobiya Aged About 67 Years R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nanhi Bai Mahobiya W/o Narayan Prasad Mahobiya Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Poonam Mahobiya W/o Vishwanath Mahobiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Bramhanpara, Dhimrapara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, PL None present. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Second Upper Sessions Judge, Durg to the Court of First Upper Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 59/2017 whereby respondents No. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and Section 328 of the IPC. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the marriage of appellant / complainant – Smt. Durgesh Nandani was solemnized with respondent No. 2/accused – Jagannath Mahobia on 30.4.2015. After sometime of of marriage, respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons started harrassing her physically & mentally in connection with demand of dowry. It is also alleged that they administered her poisonous substance mixed in tonic, therefore, she fainted, hence, she was taken to District Hospital, Durg from where she was taken to Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai where she got admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in critical condition. The appellant/complainant filed written complaint (Annexure P-2) against the respondents/accused persons. Based on which, FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged in Police Station Kotwali, Durg, District Durg. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Jai Tiwari (PW-5) vide MLC report (Ex.P-6). Bed head ticket of victim and other medical documents were also seized from Sparsh Hospital, Durg as well as District Hospital Durg. Respondents No. 2 to 5/accused were arrested. 3 3. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 328 of the IPC was filed against the respondents/accused persons. 4. Learned Upper Sessions Judge, Durg framed charges for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC against respondents No. 3 to 5/ accused persons whereas charge under Sections 498-A/34 & 328 of IPC against respondent No. 2, who is husband of the complainant. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Statement of the respondents No. 2 to 5 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. They did not examine any witnesses in support of their defence. 6. Learned trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2018, acquitted respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons of the alleged offences. Against which, instant appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim would submit that after two months of the marriage, respondents/accused persons started harrassing complainant in connection with demand of dowry and they have also administered her poisonous substance mixed in tonic, as a result thereof, she was fainted, hence, she was admitted in hospital for about six days, which has been proved by oral & documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, despite that learned trial Court 4 has acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons of the alleged charges, which is perverse to the evidence & material available on record, hence, he prayed that the appeal may be admitted for hearing. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the State has not filed appeal against the said judgment of acquittal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses including victim (PW-2) and her brother (PW-4) along with their two neighbours. As per written complaint (Ex.P-2) of victim, after about two months of marriage of respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons started harrassing her in connection with demand of dowry and when she informed this fact to her parents, then again respondents/ accused persons manhandled her and on 29.01.2016, her husband (respondent No. 2) administered her poisonous substance mixed in tonic, therefore, she was admitted in hospital. But in her deposition, she has exaggerated the allegations by saying that her husband used to show her knife and mobile given by her brother was also broken by her husband (respondent No. 2). Her mother-in-law used to taunt her about the articles given by her parents at the time of marriage. She has further alleged that costly saree given to her in marriage were distributed by her mother-in-law to her daughters. Thus, allegations of torture levelled by victim in her written complaint is something different from the allegations levelled by her in her court statement. 5 11. Though, brother of the victim (PW-4) has stated in his deposition that he had given mobile to her sister {victim (PW-2)}, which was broken by her husband (respondent No. 2/accused), but as and when that incident occurred, has not been stated by both the witnesses and such mobile has also not been seized. This witness has stated that respondent No. 2- Jagannath Mahobiya and his parents had demanded money from them to construct the house, but this has neither been stated by victim in her written complaint nor in her court statement. 12. The allegations levelled against respondent No. 2/husband that he had given poisonous substance mixed in tonic to the complainant are not proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Jai Tiwari (PW-5) as well as Dr. R.D. Sharma (PW-7). 13. Vinod Kaser (PW-1) and Arun Kumar Gupta (PW-2) are friends of brother of victim. Though, they have stated that victim was got admitted in District Hospital, subsequently, in Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai, but from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is not found to be proved that complainant was administered poisonous substance mixed in tonic. 14. The act of harrassment alleged against respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons in written complaint and court statements of victim and her brother are found to be suffering from various discrepancies. Allegation levelled against the respondents No. 2 to 5/accused persons are vague and omnibus in nature and no speci昀椀c date of alleged physical harrassment has been stated by victim. 6 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 16. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. Record of the Courts below be returned forthwith along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.30 11:14:12 +0530