2026:CGHC:7450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 248 of 2024 Smt. Chitrani Sahu W/o Khamesh Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Boriya Khurd, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Khamesh Kumar Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bagaud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Dhaniram Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Bagaud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Amrika Bai Sahu W/o Daniram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bagaud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Omprakash Sahu S/o Daniram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bagaud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Deepak Kumar Nishad, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms Isha Jajodiya, PL For Respondents-2 to 5 : Ms Sweksha Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 10.02.2026 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2024 passed in Session Trial-10 of 2021, by the learned Additional Session Judge, Dhamtari, CG, whereby the Acqa 248 of 2024 2 respondents / accused persons have been acquitted from the offence of Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34, 313, and 34 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant, PW1 was married with respondent-2 on 04.05.2017 as per the customary rights and rituals. After some time of marriage, dispute arose between them which become aggravated by the lapse of time, and ultimately, some counselling was also provided for the parties by Sakhi One Stop Centre, Dhamtari. Despite the community and family meetings, matter could not be resolved, and ultimately, complainant/wife went back to her parents’ house in the month of May, 2019, and after giving birth to a girl child on 04.01.2020, she lodged a report to the Police on 22.03.2020 alleging that she was being harassed, and subjected to cruelty by her husband, and in-laws in her matrimony house. She raised allegations that the accused persons demanded more dowry, and prescribed her for her abortion, and used to beat her. FIR Ex.P11 was registered against the respondents/accused persons for the offence under Sections 498A, 294, 323, 313 and 34 of the IPC. The complainant was sent for her medical examination to the Civil Hospital, Kurud, where she was medically examined by the doctor. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud. 3. Case was committed to the learned trial Court for its trial. Learned trial Court has framed charges against the respondents for the offence Acqa 248 of 2024 3 under Section 498A, 294, 323, 34, 313, and 34 of the IPC. Accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence, and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Two defense witnesses have also been examined, they are, DW1-Khamesh Kumar Sahu, and DW2-Hiraram Sahu. 5. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons from all the alleged offences, holding that the prosecution could not able to prove the allegation against the respondents/accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt by its judgment dated 27.03.2024, which has been challenged by the State in the present Acquittal Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has committed an error in law, as well as in facts of the case while acquitting the respondents/accused persons, as there are sufficient evidence against them with respect to harassment and cruelty. He would further submit that but for minor omissions, and contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and conviction can be made on their evidence. Acqa 248 of 2024 4 7. Complainant, PW1 has duly supported her case and her evidence has been supported by the other witnesses, who are family members. The harassment made by the accused persons and their demand of more dowry has been proved in her evidence. Minor discrepancies in their evidence does not absorb the accused persons from their liability. He would further submit that learned trial Court has emphasized its judgment on the documents submitted by the defense with respect to Community meeting, as well as the proceeding drawn before the Sakhi One Stop Centre, where counseling of the parties was done. 8. PW1-complainant, PW2- complainant’s mother, PW3-complainant’s father, PW4-complainant’s uncle, PW5-complainant’s sister, and PW9-her elder sister, who have duly supported the prosecution case, and their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity, rather corroborate with each other. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity, which is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons supported the impugned judgment. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed with the appeal. 11. Learned trial Court in its judgment has considered that the complainant has stated in her evidence that the accused persons were abusing her, whereas, PW4, PW5 and PW9, complainant’s uncle, her Acqa 248 of 2024 5 sister and elder sister have not stated anything in their evidence about abusing the complainant by the accused persons. Even there is no specific word uttered by them to the complainant. Evidence of the complainant with respect to the incident occurred on 29.04.2019, which was the allegedly occurred when she had gone to her aunt’s house in a marriage function, and on the very next day on 30.04.2019, when she had gone to the Police Station for lodging of the report, that they were convinced, and again started residing together. Witness PW2, PW3, and PW11 have stated that husband of the complainant has brutally beaten her, but it has not been supported by other witnesses, or by any other medical evidence. 12. PW11-Tikeshwar Sahu has admitted that he had not gone to the house of his aunt on 29.04.2019, and he is unaware about the incident. There are numerous discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the witnesses is inconsistent. Further, it transpires from the document Ex,D6 that husband of the complainant raised suspicion upon the complainant, and made a complaint to the community head. ExD7 is another complaint made to the community head, and D8 is a notice of Community meeting which was to be held on 07.06.2019 on the application made by the husband of the complainant. D9 is another complaint made to the Community head on 24.05.2019. As per the document Ex.D9, and D10, and D11, which are the counselling reports, also suggestive about differences between the parties, and negative act of the complainant. Acqa 248 of 2024 6 13. Nothing adverse could be found in the above documents so that it can be safely held the accused persons were guilty for committing cruelty with the complainant, or harassing her. From the document Ex.D12 it transpires the application filed by the complainant under Section 125 CrPC was withdrawn on the basis of compromise between the parties, and they were ready to move application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marrriage Act for divorce. 14. Considering all these aspects of the case, and evidence available on record, learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons, and particularly in view of inconsistency of the evidence of the witnesses, this Court also is of the opinion that the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. 15. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal of acquittal, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC On Line SC 984, has held as under: “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 finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” Acqa 248 of 2024 7 16. Yet in other matter of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in paragraph-25 as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 17. After considering the material available on record, as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious about the legal position as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Kistoora Ram (supra), and Jafarudheen (supra), in an appeal against the acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, and the trial Court taking one view, revert the accused, the version of the finding of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view for consideration, is not permissible in the law. This Court, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused respondents, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Acqa 248 of 2024 8 18. Accordingly, appeal filed by the State against the accused respondents is hereby dismissed. 19. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma