1 2026:CGHC:2777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 94 of 2023 Jay Singh Dewangan S/o Durga Prasad Dewangan Aged About 53 Years R/o Kotraroad, Baikunthpur, Raigarh, Tahsil And District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Raj Dewangan @ Pintu Dewangan S/o Late Surendra Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Narendra Medical, Gandhi Ward, Mungeli, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajesh Dewangan S/o Late Surendra Dewangan Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Narendra Medical, Gandhi Ward, Mungeli, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate appears along with Shri Syed Jayed Ziya Ali, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 :Shri Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.3 :Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 16.01.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 07.02.2023 SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.16 18:29:41 +0530 2 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raigarh, District Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.26/2022, whereby, the appellate Court, while reversing the judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.322/2015, has acquitted the respondents No.1 and 2 from the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Provision Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to ‘the Act, 1961’). 2. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, 1961, on the allegation made by the complainant- Jay Singh Dewangan in his report (Ex.P-1), dated 06.02.2015, wherein, it was alleged that the engagement of his sister was made with the respondent No.1- Raj Dewangan on 29.06.2014 and the marriage was to be solemnized after the ‘Dev Uthani Ekadashi’, but, he and his brother- Rajesh Dewangan and mother are avoiding to marry with her and at the time of meeting held on 09.11.2014, they demanded a sum of Rs.10 lacs and since, it was not fulfilled, they refused to marry her and, based upon the alleged allegation, they have been charged as such. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the complainant-Jay Singh Dewangan was examined as PW-1 and, who in his evidence has reiterated the alleged allegations, but, it appears further from his testimony that before lodging the alleged report (Ex.P-1) on 06.02.2015, a complaint was made by him before his ‘Community’ and 3 the President of his Community, namely, Natwar Dewangan had written a letter on 01.12.2014 to the President of his Community at Mungeli requesting to settle the issue as despite of the engagement made on 29.06.2014, they are not marrying the respondent No.1- Raj Dewangan with the complainant’s sister. It appears further from his testimony that the disclosure of demand of alleged amount was not made by him to the President of his Society and, similar is the statement of his brother- Roshan Lal (PW-3). 4. Although, it was stated by Jay Singh Dewangan (PW-1) that he has not disclosed to the President of his Community that the respondents have demanded the alleged amount of Rs.10 Lacs, but from perusal of the statement of one Jitendra Mehar (PW-6), it appears that he has disclosed the alleged fact to Natwar Dewangan, the President of their Community. There is, thus, material disparity in their statements to this effect as to whether the alleged demand was disclosed by him to said Natwar Dewangan or not. That apart, a letter dated 01.12.2014, written by Natwar Dewangan, as a President of Dewangan Community, Raigarh to Laxmi Dewangan, the President of said Community of Mungeli, which was forming the part of the charge-sheet, would show that no demand as such was reflected from his alleged letter. 5. What is, therefore, reflected from the materials placed on record that, though, the complainant-Jay Singh Dewangan has alleged in his report (Ex.P-1) dated 06.02.2015 that the respondents have refused to marry with his sister because of non-fulfilling the demand of Rs.10 Lacs, but the said fact was, however, not found to be reflected from the alleged letter dated 01.12.2014, written by Natwar Dewangan, the President of 4 Dewangan Community, Raigarh to the President of Dewangan Community, Mungeli and, rather a disparity was reflected from the statements of Jay Singh Dewangan (PW-1) and Jitendra Mehar (PW-6) regarding the disclosure of the alleged fact. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the alleged demand was made by the respondents as alleged by the complainant- Jay Singh Dewangan in his alleged report (Ex.P- 1). 6. In view thereof, the appellate Court, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents No.1 and 2 from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita