1 CGHC010392452019 2026:CGHC:34282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1419 of 2019 Minakshi Soni W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Bramha Road, House of Udayshankar, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Mukesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Banarsi Soni Aged About 47 Years R/o Barejpara, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2018, whereby respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 494 off the Indian Penal Code, arising out of the judgment dated 07.04.2018 in complaint Case No. 474/2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant was married to the respondent on 06.04.1998 in accordance with Hindu rites and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.07 15:35:03 +0530 2 ceremonies by Saptapadi at Mahamaya Mandir. Thereafter, the parties applied for registration of their marriage before the Additional Collector, Surguja, who was also the Marriage Officer, and the marriage was duly registered on 16.10.1998. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter, Ku. Shivani Soni, was born on 21.09.1999. After some time, the respondent started demanding dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty. Consequently, the applicant lodged a report under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came to be dismissed. The applicant thereafter instituted a suit seeking a declaration of her status as the legally wedded wife of the respondent, which was contested by the respondent. After affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the learned Family Court decreed the suit and declared the applicant to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court, the respondent preferred First Appeal (M), which was registered as F.A.M. No. 95 of 2013 before this Hon'ble Court. Vide judgment and order dated 04.02.2014, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit and affirmed the findings of the learned Family Court. In the meantime, the respondent had expelled the applicant from the matrimonial home and, sometime during the year 2004–2005, solemnized a second marriage with one Rekha Soni without obtaining a decree of divorce from the applicant. The applicant thereafter filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 474 of 2012, alleging that the respondent had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage with the applicant, rendering such second marriage void in law. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the 3 oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 07.04.2018, convicted the respondent under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with the usual default stipulation. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2018 before the learned Appellate Court. Vide the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2019, the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, and acquitted the respondent on the ground that the applicant had failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been reversed, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its true and proper perspective and proceeded on the basis of conjectures and surmises while passing the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and, instead, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had categorically admitted that he had married one Rekha Soni, that two children were born out of the said marriage, and that he had not obtained a decree of dissolution or annulment of the said marriage before contracting the subsequent marriage with the applicant. It is further submitted that no further evidence was required to establish the factum of 4 the respondent's marriage with the applicant in view of the marriage registration certificate dated 16.10.1998. It is contended that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent had contracted marriage with Rekha Soni during the subsistence of his marriage with the applicant. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court be restored. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court is well reasoned, legal and based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. He submits that the applicant has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that no cogent, reliable or legally admissible evidence has been adduced to prove that the respondent had solemnized a second marriage with Rekha Soni during the subsistence of his marriage with the applicant in accordance with the essential ceremonies required under Hindu law. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the respondent was rightly extended the benefit of doubt. It is contended that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned Appellate Court has minutely examined the oral as well as documentary 5 evidence available on record. It has specifically recorded a finding that neither the averments made in the complaint nor the testimony of the applicant/complainant and her witness clearly establish whether the respondent had contracted a second marriage with Rekha Soni during the subsistence of his valid marriage with the applicant. The burden of proving these foundational facts squarely rested upon the applicant/complainant, however, she failed to discharge the same by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. The learned Appellate Court has further observed that mere suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof and that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. On such appreciation of evidence, the respondent was rightly extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2018. The impugned judgment, being well reasoned and legally sustainable, calls for no interference. 9. Accordingly, this revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti