1 2025:CGHC:14026-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 66 of 2025 Shahina Perveen, W/o M.D. Muslim, Aged 43 Years, R/o Talwapara, Baikunthpur, Post Baikunthpur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Shamsul Ansari, S/o Late Hamid, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Telodi, Police Station Giridih, District - Giridih (Jharkhand). 2 - Abdul Ansari, S/o Late Hamid, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Telodi, Police Station Giridih District - Giridih (Jharkhand). 3 - Makbul Ansari, S/o Late Hamid, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Telodi, Police Station Giridih, District - Giridih (Jharkhand) 4 - Khairunnisha Bibi @ Babni, W/o Mohd. Asgar @ Asgar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Telodi, Police Station Giridih, District - Giridih (Jharkhand) 5 - Mohammed Ansar @ Asgar @ Chanku, S/o Late Habib Miyan, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Telodi, Police Station Giridih, District - Giridih (Jharkhand) 6 - State Through Police Station Pandeshwar, District- Durgapur (West Bengal) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent No.6 : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.25 10:43:57 +0530 2 D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24/03/2025 Heard on admission 1. This appeal has been preferred by the victim under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23/05/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge of Special Court for Trial of C.B.I Cases), Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.40/2019, whereby, the respondent No.1- Shamsul Ansari has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 307 of IPC, while respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted under Sections 498-A, 326/34, 307/34 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 07/11/2010, a report was lodged by Mohd. Shamshir Ansari, the brother-in-law of the victim before the Police Station- Pandeshwar, District- Durgapur (West Bengal), alleging inter alia, that the marriage of the victim - Shahina Perveen was solemnized with the respondent No.1-Shamsul Ansari on 24/05/2008 and after the solemnization of her marriage, a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was made by her husband, brother-in-laws, namely, Abdul Ansari (respondent No.2), Makbul Ansari (respondent No.3), Khairunnisha Bibi @ Babni (Mausi Saas) (respondent No.4) and Mohd. Ansar @ Asgar @ Chanku (respondent No.5). It is alleged further therein that, on 04/11/2010, in the night, respondent No.1, the 3 husband of the victim, has thrown acid on her, owing to which, her hand was burnt, as a result of which, three of her fingers were amputated and, alleged further that, her son was snatched by him, 3. Based upon the aforesaid information, an FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered by the concerned Police Station against the respondents in connection with crime No.56/2010 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 307 of IPC and after completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur against them with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 326, 307 and 120-B of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned trial Court, for trial where the charges mentioned herein-above have been framed, which have denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to produce the cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that the respondents are involved in connections with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/victim submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to 4 the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statements of the father Mohd. Muslim (PW-4) and, the victim Shahina Perveen (PW-2) have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No.1, the husband of the victim has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 327 of IPC, while respondents No.2 to 5 have been charge-sheeted under Sections 498- A/34, 326/34, 307/34 and 120-B of IPC. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the victim-Shahina Perveen was solemnized with respondent No.-1- Shamsul Ansari on 24/05/2008, but, after the solemnization of her marriage, she was put in harassment for demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and acid was thrown by her husband, owing to which, her three fingers were amputated. In order to establish the alleged fact, the father of the victim, namely, Mohd. Muslim was examined as PW-4, who, however, has not stated that the alleged amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was demanded by them, nor has lodged any report regarding the alleged incident, occurred on 04.11.2010. Although, it was stated by him that his son-in-law and the mother-in-law, namely, Mehrunisha, who died during trial, used to assault his daughter and his son-in-law - Shamsul Ansari has thrown acid on her, but in order to substantiate the alleged fact, neither any documentary evidence, like the treatment slip of his daughter, nor even the Doctor was examined that three of her fingers were amputated, as has been alleged in the report (Ex.P/1). The victim-Shahina Perveen (PW-2), who is the wife of respondent No.1-Shamsul Ansari, also has not stated anywhere that the alleged 5 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was demanded by her husband or by his relatives and, contrarily, it was stated that her brother-in-law (jeth) has thrown water on her. It, thus, appears that her husband has not thrown the acid upon her, as alleged in the said report (Ex.P/1). That apart, it reveals further from her testimony that, she had lodged the report against her first husband, namely, Mohd. Ayyub Ansari and his brother- in-law (jeeja), namely, Alijaan, for which, they had faced the trial for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, where the said matter had ended on compromise. Her testimony, therefore, can not be relied upon. More or less, similar is the statement of her mother-Shakila Bano (PW-5), while others are the heresay witnesses. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents in any manner are involved in connection with the alleged crime, occurred on 04.11.2010. 8. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant