1 2025:CGHC:15785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 61 of 2015 1 - Smt. Raj Kumari Diwakar W/o Rameshwar Prasad Diwakar Aged About 28 Years D/o Bhakala Ram Banjare Occupation Service, Asstt. Teacher R/o Village Hasuwa Police Station Gidhori Civil And District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rameshwar Prasad And Ors. S/o Maya Ram Diwakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dhamal Pur Police Station Bilaigarh Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Maya Ram S/o Het Ram Diwakar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Dhamal Pur Police Station Bilaigarh Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 – Smt. Bhuri Bai W/o Maya Ram Aged About 62 years R/o Village Dhamal Pur Police Station Bilaigarh Civil and Revenue District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh, District: Balodabazar-Bhatapara. 4- Subhash Kumar S/o Maya Ram Diwakar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhamal Pur Police Station Bilaigarh Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Raj Kumar S/o Maya Ram Diwakar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dhamal Pur Police Station Bilaigarh Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh , District : 2 Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Station House Officer Police Station Bilaigarh Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Legal Aid For Respondent No. 1-5 For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 03/04/2025 1. The present acquittal appeal is heard finally. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 01.05.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Learned First Additional Session Judge, Civil District Baloda Bazar in Criminal Appeal No. H-87/2014 arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2014 passed in criminal case no. 250/2012 setting aside the conviction and sentence judgment dated 29.11.2014 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Bilaigarh. 3. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. I, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate has been nominated to assist the 3 Court. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesj) , I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as her interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant got married with the respondent no. 1 on 05.06.2008 at Village Kukda. After 4 months of marriage, respondents continued to torture, abuse and beat the appellant subjecting her to cruelty for demand of dowry demanding Motor Cycle and cash worth Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant became pregnant and in October, 2008 respondent no. 1 throws the appellant out of his house for demand of motorcycle, cash worth Rs. 50,000/- and compelled her for divorce. On 12.03.2009 the appellant delivered his son in her maternal home. The Pariwarik Paramas Kendra, Janjgir considered their dispute in complaint case no. 65/2010 in meeting held on 12.06.2010 where both agreed to live together. She came to her inlaws house to restore conjugal matrimonial life with her husband. Thereafter, respondents further started torturing subjecting her to cruelty and demanding dowry. The Respondent no. 1/ husband preferred application to his Samaj Samiti, Block Nawagarh for divorce. In Samajik Meeting held on 12.06.2012 in Village Kalamidih she 4 compromised forgiving all the past conducts of respondents and restored her matrimonial life. On 13.08.2008 Respondent no. 1 further started torturing subjecting her to cruelty for demand of dowry. Thereafter, on 16.08.2008 the appellant lodged a written complaint in Police Post Gidhori Police Station Bilaigarh, where after enquiry and after satisfaction, statement of witnesses recorded on 16.08.2008 for verification of truth of her complaint in enquiry by Station officer, Police Post, Gidhori registered FIR 0/2012 dated 16.08.2012 and sent it to Police Station Bilaigarh wherein FIR No. 285/2012 dated 17.08.2012 for offence u/s 498 A read with Section 34 of IPC against all the respondents were registered. After investigation P.S. Bilaigarh filed charge-sheet and a case bearing Cr. Case No. 250/2012 under Section 498 A/34 of IPC was registered against the respondents. Prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the respondents, examined 7 witnesses and 9 documents. Learned JMFC after detailed scrutiny of evidence and appreciation of legal evidence material on record convicted the respondents u/s 498-A/ 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- to each respondent and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the judgment of JMFC, the respondents preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. H-87 2014 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, District- Balodabazar in which Learned Appellate Court set-aside the conviction 5 sentence vide judgment dated 29.11.2014 and acquitted them against the charges u/s 498-A/ 34 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of appellate court is erroneous against the settled principles of law, Criminal Jurisprudence without application of judicial mind erroneously defined differentiating Domestic Violence, element of Cruelty, without appreciation of legal evidence, materials on records. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by the Appellate Court is after appreciation of evidence and materials available on record. Therefore, it is not perverse. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of record shows that the appellant filed a written complaint in Police Post- Gidhauri that she is resident of Village Kukda Police Station- Sheorinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and she got married with respondent no. 1 on 05.06.2008 who is a resident of Village Dhamalpur. The contention of the appellant is that soon after her marriage, her husband, mother-in- law, father-in-law and brother-in-law started torturing her in the name of dowry or motorcycle and cash Rs. 50,000/-. In the month of October, 2008 when the appellant was pregnant, the respondent no. 1 sent the appellant to her matrimonial home and ask her to bring motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash. On 12.03.2012 she gave birth to a son. 6 9. On 31.08.2012 a criminal case bearing no. 250/2012 was registered against the respondent no. 1- 4 before the learned First Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar (C.G.) wherein the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 29.11.2014 convicted the respondent no. 1-4 under Section 498- A/ 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days to each respondent. 10. The respondent no. 1-4 then preferred an appeal on 16.12.2014 against the judgment passed by the Trial Court before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) bearing Criminal Appeal No. 87/2014 wherein the learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 01.05.2015 acquitted the respondents from the charges under Section 498-A/34 of IPC. 11. Section 498-A of IPC provides as under: 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “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 7 (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.] 12. It is clear from this definition that the essential ingredient to attract the offence under this Section is “cruelty”. The crime should be committed against a woman by her husband or relative. The clause (a) and (b) of the aforesaid definition clarifies the form according to which such crime should be committed against a woman which is of such a nature that it incites the woman to commit suicide or poses a serious threat to the life, limb or health of the woman. 13. According to the appellant her married life with Rameshwar (respondent no. 1) was not very smooth as there were unreasonable demands for dowry and misbehavior from Rameshwar, his parents and siblings. The allegations leveled by the appellant against the respondents are that after four months of her marriage the respondents started abusing and torturing her stating that she has not brought motorcycle with her and her husband sent her back home stating that go and bring Rs. 50,000/- cash. Further, she alleged that when she gave birth to a baby boy none of her in-laws came to see her and the baby. After holding a communal meeting the respondent no.1/ husband agreed to live with the appellant and they started living together 8 happily but after just one month the respondents again started torturing her and her husband asked her for divorce. 14. PW-02/ Roshanlal who is the head of Satnami Samaaj has deposed in his statement that respondent no. 1 had given an application in Satnami Samaaj Kasdol that there has been a rift with her wife/ Rajkumari regarding which restoration action should be taken. About 200 people including respondent no. 1/husband and appellant’s father, brother and other officials were present in the meeting and both the husband and wife were asked to live together. In cross-examination, PW-02 stated that appellant had told in the meeting that she is employed and her in-laws ask her to cook food for them. The people of Society had told the appellant and respondent no.1 to stay at a different house away from the parents of respondent no. 1 and not to spoil their future. He further contended that there is no custom of dowry in Satnaami Samaaj. 15. PW-03/ Bhaklaram who is father of appellant also admitted in his cross-examination that when his daughter used to come her maternal home then her husband/respondent no. 1 used to come with her. He further contended that respondent no. 1 has applied for communal meeting in Satnaami Samaaj, Kasdol for restoration of his marriage. In the communal meeting held it was advised by the people that if wife don’t get along with her in-laws then the husband and wife shall stay together separately from respondent 9 no. 2 and respondent no. 3. Upon this the respondent no. 1 said that he cannot leave his parents. 16. PW-04/ Mangalram who is sister of appellant deposed in cross- examination that when the marriage of the appellant and respondent no. 1 was fixed then the respondents did not demanded for dowry. She has also admitted that the relations between the appellant and respondent no. 1 was good and they used to visit her house. She further stated that the appellant came to her matrimonial house on her own will then she stated that the respondent no. 1 ask the appellant to go to her matrimonial house. 17. From the aforesaid statements of the witnesses, perusal of the documents available on record, this Court observed that the complaint filed by the appellant did not show as to which accused had committed what offence and what was the exact role played by these respondents in the commission of offence. Petty quarrels would not come under the purview of “cruelty”. Therefore, the judgment dated 01.05.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2014 is neither perverse nor illegal and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 18. Accordingly, the present Acquittal Appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima