1 2026:CGHC:4534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 394 of 2025 1 - Meena Kumari D/o Sadhram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 123 Kathreemaal, Tarda, P.O. Taraud, District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Rameshwar Kumar S/o Dhansai, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jungle Side, Magzine Road, Bankimongra, Thana Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27-01-2026 1. The present acquittal appeal under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28-10-2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Katghora, District Korba, in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 whereby the respondent No.1/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that, the complainant who is a lady Constable posted at Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba made a written complaint to Police Station Bankimongra against respondent No.1/accused with the allegation that she married with respondent No.1 in the year 2014. After some time of marriage, her husband started Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.01 20:18:15 +0530 2 misbehaving with her and treated her with cruelty and threatened her with dire consequences. She was also subjected to unnatural sexual assault and inhuman behaviour from respondent No.1. He along with other family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and Swift Dsire car and when she failed to give him the said money, he tried to kill her by pressing her neck. The offence under Section 498A, 377, 323, 324, 147 and 506B of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered against respondent No.1 and against the other accused persons offence under Section 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC was registered and after recording statement of the witnesses and completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1 and other accused persons. The charges against the present respondent No.1 was framed under Section 498A, 323, 324, 377, 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC. Charges against co- accused persons Ghanshyam Kenwat, Ramshilla Kenwat, Parmeshwar Prasad Kenwat, Rameshwari Kenwat, Rajeshwari Kenwat were framed under Section 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove the case prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which they denied the circumstances appeared against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. The present respondent No.1/accused Rameshwar Kumar Kenwat examined himself as DW-1. 4. After appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the other co-accused persons were acquitted from all the charges by the learned trial Court. The present respondent No.1 Rameshwar Kumar Kenwat was also acquitted by the learned trial Court from the offence of Section 498A/349, 324, 377, and 506 of the IPC, but the learned trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced him for S.I. for one month with fine of 3 Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine one month additional S.I. 5. Against the acquittal of other co-accused persons, the complainant/appellant has not filed any appeal and has not challenged their acquittal. Even against acquittal of the present respondent No.1 from the offence under Section 498A/149, 324, 377 and 506 Part II of the IPC by the learned trial Court, no appeal has been filed by the complainant challenging his acquittal from the aforesaid offence. However, respondent No.1/accused Rameshwar Kumar challenged his conviction under Section 323 of the IPC and sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 filed before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba. The said criminal appeal has been decided by the learned appellate Court on 28-10-2024 and respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal filed by the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned appellate Court has erred in acquitting respondent No.1/accused from the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. From the statement of the complainant/appellant, there is ample material and implication which is pointing towards guilt of respondent No.1 for the offence. The injuries found on the body of the complainant has been proved by the doctor who medically examined her and the injury was found proved by MLC report Ex.-P/16 which was given by PW-12 Doctor Nomita Singh. From the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses it is proved by the prosecution that the respondent No.1/accused subjected the complainant/appellant with cruelty and voluntarily caused injuries to her. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has also erred in acquitting the respondent No.1/accused from alleged offence of Section 498A, 324, 377 and 506 Part II of the IPC. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are 4 reliable and sufficient to convict respondent No.1/accused. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record and the same is liable to be set aside and respondent No.1/accused may be convicted for the alleged offence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material annexed with the acquittal appeal. 8. It transpired from copy of the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court that respondent No.1/accused and other co-accused persons were prosecuted before the learned trial Court and charges were framed against other co-accused persons for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC and respondent No.1 was charged for the offence under Section 498A, 323, 324, 377, 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC. The learned trial Court acquitted the other co-accused persons from all the offence, whereas, while acquitting the accused Rameshwar Kumar/respondent No.1 from offence under Section 498A, 324, 377 and 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC he was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC vide its judgment dated 27-06-2024 passed in Criminal Case No.875/2020. The said judgment of acquittal was not challenged by the appellant/complainant and when this Court raised a query from the learned counsel for appellant he also submits that the judgment dated 27-06-2024 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.875/2020 has not been challenged by the complainant in any forum. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 28-10-2024 passed by the learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 by which respondent No.1/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Since the complainant/appellant has not challenged the acquittal of respondent No.1/accused from offence of Section 498A, 324, 377 and 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC, this Court cannot consider 5 the present appeal against the judgment dated 27-06-2024 passed by the learned trial Court, but it confines only to the extent of acquittal of respondent No.1/accused from the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. 9. Present acquittal appeal is filed under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (372 of the Cr.P.C.). Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. In the present case, the accused was acquitted from the offence under Section 498A, 324, 377 and 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, District Korba. 10. Section 415(3) of BNSS, 2023 [374(3) of the Cr.P.C.] provided that any person who has been convicted on a trial held by the Magistrate of the first class, may appeal to the Court of Sessions. Here the appeal against acquittal of the accused persons by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora should lie before the Court of Sessions which clearly reflects from the conjoint reading of Section 413 and 415(3) of BNSS, 2023 and since no appeal filed by the appellant/complainant before the Court of Sessions against acquittal of accused persons, the appellant is debarred from raising issue of acquittal of the accused persons by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class before this Court. 11. So far as acquittal of respondent No.1/accused from the offence of Section 323 of the IPC which has been passed by the learned appellate Court, the acquittal appeal filed before this Court is to be considered to that extent only. 12. The learned appellate Court while considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, observed that the victim was not residing with respondent No.1/accused since 2017 and at the alleged time of incident, i.e., in the year 2020 they were not residing together. It has been further observed that in the 6 application filed by respondent No.1/accused before the learned Family Court Katghora for restitution of conjugal rights in Civil Suit No.41A/2018, mediation between the parties failed as there was no settlement between the parties and then respondent No.1/accused withdrew his application. It is also observed that on 10-04-2020 respondent No.1/accused made a complaint against the complainant/appellant that she threatened him to rope in a false case and there are documents produced by respondent No.1/accused that the allegations made by the complainant/appellant appears to be suspicious. The complainant/appellant lodged the report on 21-04-2020 with respect to the incident allegedly occurred on 10-04-2020 and she could not explain the delay of 11 days in lodging the report which raises suspicion on the genuineness of the complaint made by the appellant/complainant. Further, the MLC report Ex.-P/16 is dated 11-04-2020 and when there is no report of the complainant on 11-04-2020 her medical examination itself is doubtful as she made the complaint on 21-04-2020. 13. Considering the suspicious circumstances of the case, the learned appellate Court acquitted the respondent No.1/accused from offence of Section 323 of the IPC in which this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality for interference. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under; "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C., the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial 7 court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 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, 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 interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 16. The appellate Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the parties, acquitted the accused person after giving him the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in their court evidence makes the prosecution case suspicious and is not credible. 17. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Jafarudheen (supra) and Kistoora Ram (supra) that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis by the evidence laid by the prosecution and the trial court taking 8 one view favoured the accused, reversion on the finding of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. 18. From careful perusal of the record, this Court does not find any perversity in the consideration of the learned appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the respondent No.1/accused is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against the acquittal of respondent No.1 from the aforesaid offence is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil