2026:CGHC:11186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 679 of 2019 1 - Smt. Ashiya Pravin W/o Mo.Niyaj Khan Aged About 31 Years R/o Quarter No. 26, Near Well Ward No. 35, Najirabaad, Satna, District Satna Madhya Pradesh, District : Satna, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mo. Niyaj Khan S/o Abdul Kadir Aged About 31 Years R/o Pathripara, Police Station Kotwali, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Akram Beg S/o Ahmad Beg Aged About 34 Years R/o Purani Basti Korba Police Station Kotwali, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Khair Bai S/o Late Abdul Kadir Aged About 62 Years R/o Pathripara, Police Station Kotwali, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Noori Begam Urf Guddi S/o Akram Beg Aged About 32 Years R/o Pathripara, Police Station Kotwali, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. For Resp. No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09/03 /2026 1. The appellant/victim has preferred this acquittal appeal assailing the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 82/2018 by which the appeal preferred by the accused/respondents No. 2 to 5 has been allowed and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 336/2014 has set aside the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.25 16:50:06 +0530 judgment dated 25.09.2018 has convicted the accused for commission of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC sentencing them to the period already undergone by them from 31.07.2011 to 02.08.2011 with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default stipulation additional S.I. for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage between appellant and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 22.05.2009 as per Muslim rituals. It is also case of the prosecution that immediately after marriage, the respondents were harassing the appellant for demand of dowry and ousted her from matrimonial house which has compelled her to lodge a complaint on 26.11.2017 against the respondents before Police Station- Kotwali, District- Korba for commission of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. On the basis of the complaint after usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the learned trial Court which has been registered as Crime Case No. 336/2014. 3. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the respondents has examined the victim namely Aashiya Parveen (PW-1), Mohd. Aabad (PW-2), Sheikh Raseed (PW-3), Jai Prakash Sahu (PW-4), Virendra Kumar (PW-5), Brajesh Kumar (PW-6) & Abdul Khan (PW-7) and exhibited documents namely complaint dated 26.07.2011 submitted before Police Station- Kotwali (Ex. P/1), FIR (Ex. P/2) & statement of Mohd. Aajad (Ex. P/3). 4. Victim- Aasiya Parveen (PW-1) has been examined before the trial Court wherein in her examination-in-Chief has stated that after 4-5 months of marriage, respondents No. 2 to 5 started harassing her for demand of dowry to bring Rs.1–2 lakhs from her father. She has further stated that on being demanded by the respondents, she sometimes brought Rs. 10,000/- & 20,000/- from her father and gave the same to her husband. She has further stated that Sheikh Rashid is her maternal uncle who resides in Korba from whom she brought Rs. 20,000/- and gave it to the respondents. She has further stated that whenever money was not given, all the respondents assaulted her. She has further stated that on 26.07.2011, she lodged a written complaint regarding the incident at Police Station Kotwali, Korba. In the cross- examination, she has admitted that in the matrimonial house only her husband and her mother-in-law Khair Bai used to reside permanently and the other accused persons did not reside there but they used to visit the house frequently. She has denied the suggestion put by the defence that before the Family Counseling Centre, she had stated that her husband was impotent and as such she was unwilling to live with him as a wife. She has admitted that she has not medically examined with regard to the assault made by the accused. She has also admitted that she is not recollecting when the accused have demanded the money and voluntarily stated that when she gave money to the accused, all the accused were present at the relevant time. She has further stated that she is not further recollecting the date when she has given Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Mohd. Abad (PW-2) who is father of the complainant/victim in his examination-in-chief has supported testimony of the victim and in the cross-examination he has stated that Niyaz Khan has not beaten to the victim before him and also stated that on being demand made by the victim, he has given some amount to the victim for giving the same to the respondents. Page 4 of 7 6. Sheikh Rashid (PW-3) who is maternal uncle of the victim has stated that the complainant is his niece and has supported case of the victim. He has further stated that the respondents started harassing complainant on demand of dowry and ousted her from the house thereafter complainant came to his house and stayed there. This witness was subjected to cross-examination but remained unshaken. 7. Jayprakash Sahu (PW-4), Virendra Kumar (PW-5), Brajesh Kumar (PW-6), Abdul Khan (PW-7) have examined before the trial Court wherein they have supported version of the victim. 8. The statements of the accused/respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the trial Court wherein they have denied the allegations levelled against them, pleaded innocence and falsely implication. 9. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has convicted respondents No. 2 to 5 as aforestated. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and imposition of sentence as well as fine, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court i.e. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District- Korba which is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 82/2018 and the State has also preferred appeal which is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 04/2019. Learned Appellate Court vide order dated 23.08.2019 has allowed the appeal filed by the accused/respondents by setting aside the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba and dismissed the appeal filed by the State for enhancing the sentence awarded to the accused. Learned First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal preferred by respondents has recorded its finding in paragraph 17 that the complainant in his evidence recorded in the Court has nowhere specified that on which date she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and when she has given amount to the respondent after obtaining money from her father. Learned Appellate Court has disbelieved the statement of the victim’s father and her maternal uncle. It has also been recorded that the victim is unable to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt and the ingredient required for convicting the respondents for commission of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, is not available. Against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 23.08.2019, the appellant/victim has preferred the instant acquittal appeal before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim would submit that the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the victim’s evidence wherein she has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt regarding commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC as she has stated in clear terms about demand of dowry which has been supported by her father as well as maternal uncle. He would further submit that no reason has been assigned by the appellate court while setting aside the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and would pray for allowing the instant acquittal appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution is unable to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution is unable to prove the factum of demand of dowry by any cogent evidence, material on record. He would further submit that the victim has not placed any material for proving her case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that since the accused have already been acquitted and the power of interference in the order of acquittal by this Court in hearing the acquittal appeal, is very limited if one view which is favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial/appellate Court then unless and until it is so perverse or only one view of conviction is possible from the facts of the case then only this Court while exercising its power under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. can interfere in the order of acquittal while hearing acquittal appeal and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 13. From perusal of evidence and material on record particularly the statement of the victim, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not made out as she has not deposed anywhere that when demand of dowry was made and when she has given money to the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. In absence of reliable and independent evidence, the mere allegations of demand of money cannot establish the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In a criminal trial the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the victim actually paid money to the respondents or that the respondents subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 14. It is a well settled principle of law that when first appellate court has acquitted the accused after appreciating the evidence on record, the High Court should be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, illegal or wholly unreasonable. In the present case, the appreciation of evidence made by the learned first appellate court appears to be reasonable and based on the material available on record and no perversity or illegality has been pointed out which would justify interference by this Court, therefore, this Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned first appellate court. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun