1 2025:CGHC:60901-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.55 of 2011 1 - Manohar Lal Gangwani S/o Late Mangal Ram Gangwani Aged About 58 Years R/o Chandra Colony, P.S. Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anil Rohra S/o Shri Lalchand Rohra Aged About 37 Years R/o Shubham Vihar Colony, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lalchand Rohra S/o Late Daryanamal Rohra Aged About 56 Years 4 - Sunil Rohra S/o Shri Lalchand Rohra Aged About 28 Years 5 - Smt. Shanti Devi (Died And Deleted) As Per Court Order Dated 19- 09-2025 6 - Ku. Punam Rohra S/o Shri Lalchand Rohra Aged About 22 Years Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are R/o Beside Of Vidya Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. B. P. Rao, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA For Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 15/12/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.05.2010 passed by learned 7th Upper Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Session Case No.232/2009, whereby the respondent Nos.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498 read with Section 34 and Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the deceased Anita was solemnized with the respondent No.2 Anil Rohra on 02.06.2006. Soon after marriage, the respondents started torturing the deceased for demand of dowry physically and mentally. In February, 2007, she gave birth to a male child Ritesh and on 09.07.2007, she was expelled by the private respondents whereas the child was kept with them. On 03.08.2007 custody of the child was given to the deceased by the Court. On 21.11.2008, she was forcefully taken by the accused respondents. On 19.08.2009, an information was given by Amar Sundrani to the father of deceased Manoharlal that she has died. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused respondents by the father of the deceased, upon which a case was registered against the accused respondents. After investigation, charge 3 sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned for the offence under Sections 498 and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent No.2 to 6 of the aforesaid charges, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct prospective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondent No.2 to 6, but despite the same the accused respondent have been acquitted. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 304-B & 498-A of IPC as well as the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act in its proper perspective. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned Court below is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in 4 its true perspective and has wrongly acquitted the respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 6 supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. There is no evidence of demand of dowry soon before death of the deceased against the accused respondents as such the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges. Thus, looking to the limited scop of interference in the acquittal appeal, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. During pendency of the appeal, respondent No.5 Smt. Shanti Devi has died. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 to 6 from the aforesaid charges. 9. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that the marriage of the deceased Anita was solemnized with the respondent No.2 5 Anil on 02.06.2006 and she died on 19.08.2009. As per medical evidence of PW-1 Dr. Shyam Nemani, deceased was admitted in his hospital due to weakness on 07.08.2009 and she was discharged from hospital on 08.08.2009. 10. PW-6 Dr. Ulhas Gonnade conducted postmortam of deceased and opined that she died due to cardio respiratory failure and gave his report (Ex-P/9). In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not find any external or internal injury on the body of deceased and she died due to weakness. 11. The father of deceased PW-3 Manohar Gangwani and brother of deceased Raja Gangwani (PW-5) stated that the accused/respondents demanded dowry and committed maarpeet with deceased and in the year 2007-08 there was dispute between them, but in their examination-in-chief and cross- examination, it was not stated that soon before hear death, deceased was subjected to any cruelty in relation to demand of dowry. 12. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of all the witnesses including the statement of both doctors and found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty soon before her death for demand of dowry. It is also clear that nature of death was not opined by the doctor that whether it is suicidal or homicidal and death was due to weakness opined by 6 the doctors. The father, mother and brother of deceased have only levelled general allegations against the accused/respondents in their statements. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra), it is clear that the learned Trial Court minutely 7 appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent Nos.2 to 6. This finding recorded by the Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala