1 2026:CGHC:8949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 455 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Khursipar, District -Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus 1 - Sayyed Usman Ali S/o Sayyad Shaban Ali , Aged About 45 Years. 2 - Sayyad Lukman Ali S/o Sayyad Sayyad Shabn Ali Aged About 47 Years. 3 - Shamim Bano D/o Sayyad Shaban Ali Aged About 42 Years. All are R/o. M.P.R. Road Quarter No. 8-A, zone -2, sector -11, Khursipar - Bhilai ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.. ……..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. For Respondent/Accused : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/State against the order of acquittal dated 29.06.2017 passed in Sessions Trial 2 No.100/2010 by which learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (CG) acquitted the respondent/accused of offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 316 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Dowry Act by giving the benefit of doubt. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/accused were arrested and prosecuted in connection with Crime No. 32/2010 registered at Police Station Khursipar, District Durg (C.G.). As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the respondents is that they acting in concert and in furtherance of their common intention, subjected the complainant/victim Shahin Bano, to cruelty and physical assault on account of their unlawful demand for dowry. It is further alleged that at the relevant time the complainant was pregnant and, due to the physical assault inflicted upon her by the respondents by means of kicks and blows, the live infant in her womb died. Thus, the respondents are alleged to have committed a grave and cognizable offence. Based on report, FIR was registered against the respondent/accused for the alleged crime/offence. 3. On completion of investigation, final report/charge-sheet was filed against the respondents/accused and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. Statement of respondents (accused) were also 3 recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents/accused in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the deposition tendered by the complainant / victim, whereby she has clearly deposed that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1/Sayyad Usman Ali and just after marriage, her husband and co-accused persons (respondents No. 2 and 3) started cruelty and torture for their illegal demand of dowry. Learned trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondents even when there are ample evidence against them. Hence, impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that the learned trial Court is fully justified in acquitting the respondents. The order passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference and appeal filed by the learned counsel for the State/appellant is liable to be dismissed. 4 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as material/evidence available on record. 9. Learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents/accused has held in impugned judgment that prosecution has exhibited the following documents, First Information Report dated 30.01.2010 (Ex.P-1); written application submitted by the complainant (Ex.P-2); First Information Report dated 29.01.2010 (Ex. P-3); list of dowry articles (Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-7); property seizure memo (Ex. P-5); receipts of the articles given to the complainant as dowry (Ex. P-8 to Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-11 to Ex. P-16); photocopy of the savings bank account (Ex. P-10); letter sent by the complainant’s grandfather Mr S.A. Gani dated 12.01.2009 (Ex. P-19); letter addressed to the Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant regarding harassment of the complainant (Ex. P-23); notice issued by the Women Police Station, Durg directing the complainant and her family members to remain present for counselling (Ex. P-24); notice issued by Bhilai Steel Plant dated 24.12.2009 directing the complainant to appear in the Administrative Building in connection with her complaint (Ex. P-25); photocopy of the complainant’s passbook (Ex. P-26); interim custody receipt relating to the dowry property handed over to the complainant (Ex. P-27); counselling proceedings conducted by the Women Police Station, Durg (Ex. P- 28); property seizure memo (Ex.P-28A); statement of the complainant dated 29.01.2010 expressing unwillingness to undergo 5 counselling; admission and discharge summary record of Shahin Bano/victim from Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai (Ex. P-30); crime detail form (Ex. P-31); affidavit of Shahin Bano (Ex. D-1); list of articles (Ex. D-2); complaint submitted by the complainant Shahin Bano to the Superintendent of Police, Durg against the accused persons (Ex. D-3); and the counsellor’s report (Ex. D-4). Statements of witnesses were recorded as PW-1 to PW-9. However, all the alleged documents are not of such material nature in themselves that any conclusion can be drawn against the accused persons on their basis. 10. PW-2/complainant in her evidence has stated that her marriage with accused/Syed Usman Ali was solemnized on 19.05.2007 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage, she went to reside at her matrimonial home at Khursipar. From the very first day after the marriage, the accused persons/respondents started harassing her (physical and mentally) on account of demand of dowry. She further stated that when she was pregnant, respondents assaulted her by means of kicks, fists and blows due to which, she suffered from severe pain went to the Hospital for treatment, where after examining her, the Doctors informed her that she suffered a miscarriage and advised for operation which was done subsequently. 11. Though there is allegation against the respondents that they assaulted the complainant/victim on account of unlawful demand 6 for dowry, but PW-5/Smt. Nishat Ahmad in her evidence stated that complainant is her niece (भतीजी) and her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1/Sayyed Usman Ali on 19.05.2007 in a pleasant and cordial atmosphere. She further admitted that neither before the marriage nor after the marriage, accused persons never make any demand from her family members . She also admitted that all the articles were given voluntarily as gifts at the time of marriage. 12. Though there is allegation that due to the physical assault inflicted upon the victim by the respondents by means of kicks and blows, the live infant in her womb died, however, in this regard PW-6/Dr. Lalita Singh in her evidence has stated that victim /Shahin Bano was admitted to BSP Hospital, Sector-9, Bhilai on 12.05.2008, as she was approximately two and a half months pregnant. As per the sonography report , growth of the fetus was not occurring , there were no signs of life in the fetus , and the fetus had died in the womb. On 13.05.2008, the victim was examined and treated by the junior doctor present with her, and D.N.C. (Dilatation and Curettage) procedure was performed, whereby the entire contents of the dead fetus were removed from the uterus. Hence, it is clear from her evidence that unborn child was aborted for the sake of mother’s life, ie ,complainant. Further, PW-6/Doctor has not noticed any injury on the body of the victim during examination and also not mentioned any fact that victim has made any complaint before him 7 with regard to the injury caused by the respondents. Thus, there is general allegation against the respondents. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents for the alleged offence/crime as the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Even it is implicit in this judicial process that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed. 15. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:- “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 interfere would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 16. The order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with unless there has been grave miscarriage of justice or consideration of the evidence was perverse. Even if two conclusions are possible on basis of the same evidence, the one favourable to the accused has to be taken and it will not be proper for the appellate Court to 8 interfere with the acquittal merely because it may be of a difference opinion. Failure to consider admissible evidence or admitting inadmissible evidence are some of the other grounds on which the order of acquittal may be interfered with. In the facts of the present case, none of the circumstances exist presently warranting interference 17. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State has no substance, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-