1 2026:CGHC:16492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 327 of 2023 • Smt. Anjali Tiwari D/o K.S. Trivedi, Aged About 42 Years, W/o Rahul Tiwari, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Tikarapara, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). 2. Smt. Rama Tiwari W/o Sushil Tiwar,i Aged About 56 Years, 3. Sushil Tiwari S/o Late Ram Gopal Tiwari, Aged About 66 Years, 4. Ranjeet Tiwari S/o Sushil Tiwari, Aged About 35 Years, 5. Smt. Archana Tiwari W/o Ranjeet Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years, 6. Rahul Tiwari S/o Sushil Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years, Respondents No. 2 to 6 Are R/o Village Patpar, Out Post Chichola, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate. For Respondent No1/State : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 to 6 : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 09/04/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27/11/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.10 14:09:07 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.15/2018, whereby, the appellate Court while reversing the judgment dated 23/06/2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.71/2011, has acquitted the respondents from the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that a written complaint (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Mahila Police Thana, Raipur, alleging inter-alia, that her marriage with the Respondent No.6- Rahul Tiwari S/o Sushil Tiwari was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rights and rituals on 22/01/2006, who was a “supervisor” in a company of Italy. It is alleged further that her husband went to Italy on account of his profession and, she could not go there alongwith him because of want of passport and visa and started living in her matrimonial home at village Patpar and thereafter, she went to Italy alone in the month of December, 2006 after arranging a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by her parents. It is alleged further that she was remained with her husband up to May, 2007, where she has seen the illicit relation of her husband with one Italian lady and has found him on objectionable condition and when she raised an objection, she was beaten up by him. It is alleged further that she narrated the alleged information to her in-laws, but they did not help her and contrarily she was forced to tolerate the said situation and, thereafter, she informed the alleged information to her parents, who then went to her in-laws for persuasion, but were misbehaved by them. It is 3 alleged further that a meeting was convened in the village where a compromise took place and her husband, thereafter, took her to Italy on 21/07/2007, where she stayed with him hardly for 15 days, but during the said period, he assaulted her while abusing with filthy words, owing to which, she became ill and, was brought by him to her in-law’s house on 12/08/2007, where she was maltreated by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar) and sister-in-law (Devarani), who alleged her falsely that she does not keep her husband properly. It is alleged further that she was asked by her in- laws to come with Rs.5 Lakhs else she will not be alive and it is alleged further that on 17th August, her husband from some unknown place called her, her father and brother saying that he has no relation with her and would not tried to make any contact with him and if she lodged any report to the Police Station, her only brother would, then, be killed. Based upon her alleged allegation, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered by the concerned Police Station against her in-laws for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 506 of IPC on 29/08/2007 and after completion of the usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court, where based upon the materials, they have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and in her statement, she has re-iterated the allegations as was levelled by her in her said written report (Ex.P-1). Although, in her alleged report, it was alleged that she was asked by 4 her in-laws to come with Rs.5 Lakhs, but from para 1 of her testimony, it appears that on 17th August her husband called her from some unknown place on her landline phone and told her that he has no relation with her and told further to give Rs.5 Lakhs to her father whenever she comes and, it appears further from her testimony that her brother was threatened to be killed by him when she lodged the report. However, the alleged of her version is contrary to her alleged report (Ex.P-1), as it was alleged, therein, that if she lodge the report, then her brother would be eliminated by him. Her statement is, therefore, deviated from her alleged report (Ex.P-1). Even her statement to this effect is not found to be supported by her brother, namely, Prashant Dwivedi (PW-3), as he has not stated as such in his evidence, nor her statement is found to be supported by her father (PW-6) as he also deposed that if report is lodged by her before the Police Station, his son would be killed, which is contrary to her testimony, as observed herein-above. 4) After considering the aforesaid evidence of the prosecutrix, her father (PW-6) and brother (PW-3), the Appellate Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in reversing the judgment of the trial Court while acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 5) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant