Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10598-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 18 of 2021 --- Champa Devi wife of Mahesh Prasad, daughter of Sugan Ram, resident of Kanchanpur, PO & PS Kanchanpur, District Hazaribag … … Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Mahesh Prasad son of Ganesh Prasad 3. Mohini Devi wife of Ganesh Prasad 4. Ganesh Prasad son of late Mahabir Prasad All residents of village Kanchanpur, PO & PS Kanchanpur, District Hazaribag … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --- For the Appellant : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Special P. P. For the Respondent no. 2 to 4 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary & : Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocate --- 07/15.04.2026 Heard Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Prateek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2021 passed in S. T. No. 213 of 2015 arising out of Sadar P. S. Case No. 998 of 2014 corresponding to G. R. No. 4087 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Judge (Crime against Women), Hazaribag whereby and whereunder the accused persons have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 307, 323, 341, 494 & 379 of I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint petition filed by the appellant/complainant in which it has been stated that the complainant had earlier instituted a case against the accused persons being Katkamsandi P. S. Case No. 194 of 2012 and a maintenance case 2 being Maintenance Case No. 151 of 2012 and both are pending. The husband of the complainant who is the respondent no. 2 in the present appeal had filed a suit being M.T.(S) No. 113 of 2012 which is also pending. It has been alleged that under a conspiracy, the accused persons had got the second marriage of the respondent no. 2 solemnised with Sarita Kumari on 06.06.2014. When the complainant came to know about the said fact, the accused persons were confronted by her upon which she was threatened of dire consequences. When the father of the complainant came to know about the incident, he had called a Panchayat meeting at Kanchanpur on 05.07.2014 and the allegations levelled by the complainant were found to be true which resulted in the issuance of direction by the Panchayat to respondent no. 2 and his family members to leave Sarita Kumari. As per the direction of the Panchayat, the complainant started staying at her matrimonial house, but she was subjected to torture by various means by the accused persons and lastly on 05.08.2014, the complainant was slapped and manhandled and asked to leave the matrimonial house. 4. The complaint petition filed by the complainant was registered as Complaint Case No. 1544 of 2014 which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., where it was registered as Hazaribag Sadar P. S. Case No. 998 of 2014 under Sections 323, 379, 307, 494/34 of I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 213 of 2015. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 494/34, 307/34, 341/34, 323/34 and 379/34 of I.P.C. which were read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of it case. 6. P.W. 1 – Sudan Ram is the father of the informant/complainant who has stated about solemnization of marriage of the informant with the respondent no. 2 in April 2007 and after which the informant was kept well for 3-4 months, and thereafter the accused 3 persons started demanding an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and an Alto car and on non-fulfillment of the said demand, the informant was ousted from the matrimonial house. The informant had lodged a case under Section 498A of I.P.C. being Katkamsandi P. S. Case No. 194 of 2012 in which the accused persons were convicted. The informant had also filed a case for maintenance being Maintenance Case No. 151 of 2012 and the respondent no. 2 has filed a matrimonial suit being M.T.(S) No. 113 of 2012. He has stated that with the assistance of mediator, the marriage of the respondent no. 2 got solemnized with a minor girl namely, Sarita Kumari on 06.06.2014. When the information of the second marriage of the respondent no. 2 came to knowledge of the informant, she had gone to Village Digwar with 20-25 persons and a Panchayati was held. In the Panchayati, the respondent no. 2 had accepted the fact that he has solemnized another marriage and in course of the meeting, there was a quarrel between the respondent no. 2 and the Panches and the respondent no. 2 had left the meeting after which the Panches have directed the informant to take proper steps against the respondent no. 2. On 25.06.2014, the informant had gone to her matrimonial house, where her husband and in-laws had asked her to remain silent. After the informant gathered information about the second marriage of the respondent no. 2, she informed him and thereafter he along with some other persons had gone to Kanchanpur and met the Mukhiya after which a Panchayati was convened. The informant was sent to her matrimonial house. However, the informant at her matrimonial house was subjected to torture and assault and she was forced to leave the said place after which the complaint case was lodged. In cross-examination, he has deposed that when the second marriage of the respondent no. 2 was solemnized neither he was present nor any of his witnesses were present. There is no written proof of the second marriage of the respondent no. 2. He has not submitted any medical report in support of the informant being attempted to be strangulated. From January 2012, the informant is staying at her parental house, but occasionally she goes to her matrimonial house. 4 7. P.W. 2 – Prakash Kumar is acquainted with the informant and has stated that after marriage, the informant was subjected to torture by the respondent no. 2 and her in-laws for which a Panchayati was held and it was decided that the informant will stay at her matrimonial house. However, after a few days, the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was not present at the time of solemnization of second marriage of the respondent no. 2. The relationship between the informant and respondent no. 2 is sour because of birth of two daughters. The informant was abused in his presence. 8. P. W. 3 - Pradeep Kumar Mehta has stated about the torture committed upon the informant by the respondent no. 2 and his family members as well as the second marriage of the respondent no. 2. He has stated about the decision of the Panchayat pursuant to which the informant went to her matrimonial house and after 3-4 days, she was again subjected to torture and was once again ousted from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, he has deposed that demand of dowry was not made in his presence. Whatever has been stated by him, he had heard from others. 9. P.W. 4 – Nirmal Prasad Mehta is acquainted with the petitioner, who in his examination-in-chief has reiterated what has been stated by the P.W. 3. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was not present in the marriage of the respondent no. 2 with Sarita Kumari. It was the informant who had informed him about the demand of dowry made by the respondent no. 2 and his family members as well as the torture committed upon her. 10. P.W. 5 – Jageshwar Mahto has stated about the details of solemnisation of marriage between the informant and the respondent no. 2, the subsequent demand of dowry and torture committed upon the informant, holding of Panchayatis, the second marriage of the respondent no. 2 and the entry of the informant in her matrimonial house 5 pursuant to the direction of the Panches and thereafter one week the informant was once again ousted from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has never seen any assault committed upon the informant. He was not present in the marriage ceremony of respondent no. 2 and Sarita Kumari. 11. P.W. 6 – Vakil Mahto has reiterated what has been stated by the P.W. 5 in his examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had come to know about the incident from the informant herself. 12. P.W. 7 – Vijay Kumar has also stated about the differences between the informant and the respondent no. 2 and the torture committed upon the informant as well as holding of Panchayati. He was present in the Panchayati where a decision was taken to give Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the daughters of the informant and half – half share in the immovable property of the respondent no. 2 and his father. However, such direction was not complied with by the respondent no. 2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that no demand of dowry was made in his presence. He had also not witnessed any assault committed upon the informant. He had not seen the second marriage of the respondent no. 2. 13. P.W. 8 – Champa Devi is the informant who has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent no. 2 on 28.04.2007 after which she had gone to her matrimonial house, where she was kept well for 4-5 months and thereafter the respondent no. 2 and her in-laws started demanding additional dowry of Rs. 3,00.000/- in cash and an Alto car. When her father was unable to meet such demands, she was subjected to abuses and assault. In the meantime, she had given birth to two daughters. She had filed a case against the respondent no. 2 and her in-laws in which they were convicted. The accused persons used to threaten her to withdraw the case, otherwise the second marriage of the respondent no. 2 will be solemnized. She has stated that on 23.06.2014, she had received information that on 06.06.2014, the respondent no. 2 solemnised another marriage with Sarita Kumari and on such information, she had gone to Digwar where a Panchayati was held. 6 However, there ensued a quarrel between the mediator and the father of Sarita Kumari and both fled away from the Panchayat. She had thereafter come to her matrimonial house. On 25.06.2014 she had gone to Kanchanpur, where she was abused by the respondent no. 2 and her in- laws. Her father had come and a Panchayati was held on 05.07.2014, where the respondent no. 2 and his father admitted to the solemnization of marriage of respondent no. 2 with Sarita Kumari. The Panchayat had arrived at a decision that in order to secure her future and the future of her daughters, the respondent no. 2 and his father were directed to divide the immovable property and deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- each for his daughters in fixed deposits. The Panchayat had also asked her to go to her matrimonial house, but after reaching there, she was subjected to abuses and assault. Ultimately, she was ousted from her matrimonial house, after which she came back to her parental house after which a complaint petition was filed. She has proved the complaint petition and the signatures on the same which have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 1/8. She has proved the Panchayat documents dated 24.06.2015 which was marked as Exhibit 2. The ‘Adhikarnama’ has been proved and marked as Exhibit 3. She has also proved the Panchayat document dated 05.07.2014 which has been marked as Exhibit 4. The marriage card of the respondent no. 2 and Sarita Devi has been proved and marked as material Exhibit no. I. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the material exhibit I was not printed in her presence. She had filed a case in the year 2014 and in 2012 the respondent no. 2 had already filed a suit for divorce. She has not regularly stayed at her parental house since 2012 and sometimes she used to go to her matrimonial house for 2-3 days. 14. P.W. 9 – Baldeo Ram is the Mukhiya of Sindoor Panchayat who has stated that the informant had filed an application before the Panchayat that her husband and in-laws are demanding dowry and she was subjected to assault. On such application, he had gone to meet the Mukhiya of Kanchanpur, and thereafter both had gone to the matrimonial house of the informant, where a date for Panchayat was fixed which proved futile as despite the respondent no. 2 appearing in 7 the Panchayat, he refused to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. Thereafter the father of the informant came and disclosed that he had come to know that the respondent no. 2 has solemnized another marriage and subsequently it came to light that the respondent no. 2 had indeed solemnized another marriage. A Panchayati was once again held in which the father of the respondent no. 2 had admitted about the second marriage of the respondent no. 2. A decision was taken that half of the property of respondent no. 2 and his father would be given to the informant, but the said decision was not adhered to by the respondent no. 2 and his father. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the incident. He was not present in the second marriage of the respondent no. 2. 15. P.W. 10 – Akhlakh Ahmad was posted as an Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police in Sadar Police Station, Hazaribag and on 06.01.2015 he had been given the charge of investigation by the Officer Incharge of Sadar Police Station. Upon taking over investigation, he had perused the case diary and in course of investigation he had recorded the statements of the witnesses. The respondent no. 2 was arrested and his statement in defence was recorded. On completion of investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has not deposed anything of substance. 16. P.W. 11 – Nand Kishore Singh is the first Investigating Officer of Sadar P. S. Case No. 998 of 2014. He has proved the endorsement in the complaint petition which was marked as Exhibit 5. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit 6. After taking over investigation, he had recorded re-statements of the informant and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He had also visited the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, he has deposed that till he was incharge of investigation, he had not received any injury report. 17. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the offence. 8 18. It has been submitted by Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant that all the charges levelled against the respondent no. 2 have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but the learned trial court has given a complete go-by to the evidence on record. It has been submitted that P.W. 8 has categorically stated about the assault committed upon her and the attempts made to strangulate her, but said oral evidence has not been taken into consideration. The prosecution has also brought on record the marriage card substantiating the second marriage of respondent no. 2 with Sarita Kumari, but the same has also not been appropriately considered by the learned trial court. 19. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any supporting document about the second marriage of the respondent no. 2 and the attempt to commit murder of the informant. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the trial court records. 21. The informant/appellant is aggrieved by that part of the judgment dated 06.03.2021 by which the respondent no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 307, 323, 341, 494 & 379 of I.P.C. Each of the said charges has separately been dealt with by the learned trial court. So far as the allegation against the respondent no. 2 with respect to having solemnized a second marriage is concerned, it appears that the prosecution has banked upon the marriage card which was exhibited, but the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence by way of witnesses who had been present at the time of wedding. Even P.W. 8 has not stated about seeing the presence of Sarita Kumari at her matrimonial house when she returned pursuant to the direction of Panches. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record any injury report substantiating the allegation of assault committed upon the informant and making an attempt to strangulate her. No bodily injury has been suffered by the informant and if at all there was an intention, the opportunity had presented himself when the informant had returned back to her matrimonial house. The informant had alleged 9 that her mangalsutra was stolen, but there is no recovery of stolen article nor there is any investigation done by the Investigating Officers with respect to the said aspect. The evidences of the witnesses clearly point to the attempts made by the informant to make the offence more graver without any substantial proof of the same. The learned trial court has appropriately dealt with each of the charges and has correctly come to the conclusion that the charges levelled under Sections 307, 323, 341, 494 & 379 of I.P.C. have not been proved by the prosecution. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 22. Pending I.A., if any stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 15th April 2026 R. Shekhar Cp 3 Uploaded on 20/04/2026