Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shashi Bhushan Jaiswal on 30 March, 2026
1
AVANISH 2026:CGHC:14888
KUMAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
AVANISH KUMAR
PATHAK NAFR
Date: 2026.04.01
14:24:17 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 195 of 2020
RESERVED ON 16-3-2026
DELIVERED ON 30-3-2026
Savita Jaiswal W/o Shri Rajnish Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nagpur ,
Police Station Baikuntpur , Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Shashi Bhusan Jaiswal S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 61 Years
R/o Village Podi, Schoolpara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur ,
Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Sudama Devi W/o Shri Shashi Bhusan Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
Podi, Schoolpara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur , Koriya
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Rajnish Jaiswal S/o Shri Shashi Bhusan Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Podi, Schoolpara , Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Koriya
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baikunthpur , District Koriya
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
2
For appellant : Mr. Vikrant Pillai, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent No. 4/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt.
Adv.
ACQA No. 194 of 2023
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---Appellant Versus 1 - Shashi Bhushan Jaiswal S/o Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Podi, Schoolpara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sudama Devi Jaiswal W/o Shashi Bhushan Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Podi, Schoolpara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajnish Jaiswal S/o Shashi Bhushan Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Podi, Schoolpara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) For appellant/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt.
Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv.
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) C A V Judgment
1. Since both the above acquittal appeals arise out of the same judgment pertaining to same criminal case passed by Additional Sessions Judge 3 (FTC), Baikunthpur, Distt Koria, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
(For convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court)
2. Acquittal Appeal No. 195/2020 under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is directed by the appellant/complainant/wife against the judgment dated 9-3-2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur at Korea (henceforth, referred to 'Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 45/2018 whereby the respondent No. 1 and 2 / accused No. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Accused No. 3 has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498A, 313, 323 and 506 of the IPC.
3. Acquittal Appeal No. 194/2023 has been preferred under Section 387(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the State against the above judgment whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment.
4. In the instant case, admitted facts are that complainant Savita Jaiswal is wife of accused no. 3. Accused no. 1 and 2 respectively are father- in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Complainant and accused no. 3 got married on 26.04.2016. Accused no. 3 was employed as Teacher Panchayat at Village Podi, whereas complainant was working as Lecturer Panchayat at High School, Barbaspur.
5. Prosecution story, in brief is that, on 26.05.2017 the complainant/ wife lodged a complaint in writing that for around 1 month of said marriage, her in-laws kept her properly, but thereafter, they started abusing her, her mother and father and beating her on trivial things demanding 4 dowry. They harassed her mentally and physically and demanded vehicle as dowry. When she became pregnant 1 st time, accused persons without her consent in order to get her aborted, forcibly made her to eat pills, leading to miscarriage. In December, 2016, when she again conceived, accused persons again insisted for abortion. On her refusal, on being instigated by accused no. 1 and 2, accused no. 3 beaten her up. Once, accused no. 3 deliberately got her fallen of the bike, with intention to get her aborted. Thereafter, on 29.01.2017 when she stated of taking action and reporting the matter to police, accused no. 3 arranged for separate residence on rent basis at Baikunthpur, but accused no. 3 kept on insisting for abortion. Accused on 13.03.2017 with intent to cause miscarriage dragged her from bed, pressed her neck and kicked her over abdomen. She raised alarm, hearing which, neighbours reached on the spot and saved her. On 20.3.2017, she reported the matter to Child Protection and Women Development Department, Koriya, where accused no. 3 tendered written apology with undertaking, not to repeat such acts. She also wanted to report the matter to police, however, having been advised by neighbours that accused would not repeat such deeds, she refrained. Thereafter she returned back to her maternal house at village: Nagpur. On 07.04.2017, upon performing sonography of complainant, it was reported that due to hurt having been caused by her husband, fetus had got aborted. Based on the said report in writing (Ex.P/1), FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 313, 498A and 34 of the IPC.
5
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (CG), who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Koriya (C.G.), who in turn, assigned the same to learned Additional Sessions Judge for disposal.
7. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused No. 1 and 2 under Section 498A of the IPC, but framed charges against accused No. 3 under Sections 498A, 313, 323 and 506 of the IPC, who abjured their guilt and entered into trial.
8. So as to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents and 3 articles. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, pleaded not guilty and false implication. They have examined Urmila Rajwade, Constable as DW 1 and exhibited 7 documents in their defence.
9. Learned Special Judge after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the accused persons of all the charges. Hence, these aquittal appeals have been filed by the complainant and the State.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State jointly submit that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective whereas, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They further submit that, accused No. 3/husband of 6 the complainant with the intention of aborting the complainant beaten her on her stomach with legs. They further submit that learned Trial Court has erred in believing the statement of hostile witness Madhubala Singh (P.W. 5), because in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. she has stated that there was some dispute between the accused No. 3/husband and the complainant/wife, but in examination- in-chief, she has not stated so. They further submit that, learned trial Court has wrongly assumed that, there are contradictions regarding demand of dowry, as in the written complaint Ex. P-1, complainant has alleged that the accused persons used to demand vehicle and money in dowry but in the court statement, she has stated that they demanded vehicle as well as Rs. 10,00,000/-. They further submit that prosecution witnesses have proved that there was demand of dowry in form of vehicle and money and accused persons also harassed complainant/wife, which also gets support from medical evidence and evidence of mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of complainant. As such, demand of dowry and harassment by the accused persons have been very well proved, therefore, judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is bed in law. Consequently, they submit that the appeals may be allowed and accused persons may be convicted for said charges. However, learned counsel for complainant informed the Court that, marriage between the complainant/wife and accused No. 3/husband has been dissolved as decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the husband.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons submit that the 7 impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is basd on well appreciation of the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. Hence, both the appeals filed by the complainant and the State deserve to be rejected.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the Trial Court.
13. Learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons of the charges on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused persons demanded dowry, and having not fulfilled the same, she was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC and it has also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, accused Rajnish gave beatings to the complainant causing hurt to her, which led to miscarriage and the allegaion of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of the IPC also does not stand proved.
14. In the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [(2009 13 SCC 330], Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the 'cruelty' for the purpose of Section 498-A of IPC, has held that, to prove aforesaid charge, it is to be established in that context as it may be different from other statutory provisions. In other words, it has been held that, it has to be established that the woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint. It has been further held that :--
"21. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be 8 established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as "cruelty" to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty."
15. In instant case, complainant (P.W. 1) in her complaint (Ex.P/1) and deposition before Trial Court has stated that her harassment started after one month of marriage. In Ex.P/1 she has stated that accused persons demanded a vehicle, whereas in deposition she has stated that they demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for securing job of her brother-in- law -Sudhir. In complaint Ex. P/1 she has stated that she and her parents were usually abused by the accused persons, and she was beaten up for trivial things. However, in court she did not say anything about her being beaten up during initial days. Allegation of mental and physical harassment is made in Ex.P/1 whereas, same is absent in her court statement. She has further stated that in her pregnancy in June 2016, accused persons forcibly made her to eat medicine, resulting into miscarriage. But, there is no material on record to 9 corroborate her version that she was made to eat such medicines by the accused persons or, such miscarriage was got conducted by the accused persons. Medical evidence also does not support that such abortion was even carried out. She has further stated in her deposition that her husband used to ask her to bring Motorcycle, Car, AC etc. from her parental house, but there is material omission in this regard in written complaint/FIR. She has also stated that in December, 2016 when she became pregnant, accused persons again pressurised her for abortion. Upon being refused, one day when she was going on bike with her husband, on refusal for abortion, he deliberately drove the bike rashly to fall her down from the bike, as a result, she fell down. Next day, her husband dropped her to bus stop, but did not come to pick her up. She was made to travel around 7 km by foot. Upon complaining, accused persons jointly scolded her. When she threatened to make complaint to police, her husband agreed to live separately and thereafter they shifted to Baikunthpur in rented premises on 29.01.2017. There also, her husband continued harassing her. She further stated that in the month of March, 2017 her in-laws came to her rented premises and advised her husband that if she does not agree for abortion, kick her on abdomen. Then on 13.03.2017, her husband abused her and dragged her from bed and pressed her abdomen and her neck saying that he would kill her, because she was not agreeing for abortion. Upon listening shouts and realising that someone of nearby were about to come, he left her whereas in complaint (Ex. P-1), she has alleged that neighbours came and saved her. Thereafter, she made a written complaint before 10 Women Protection and Child Development Department on 20.03.2017. She has admitted in cross-examination that in the marriage, her in-laws had gifted her various gold ornaments. At the time of marriage, there was no dispute and marriage was performed coolly. She has denied the suggestion that she remained only for around 2 months at in-laws house.
16. Devki Jaiswal (P.W. 2), mother of complainant and Kalawati (PW-3)-
sister-in-law of the complainant, have stated that accused persons were harassing complainant in connection with demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/-. But there is no allegation of demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the FIR, wherein complainant has alleged about demand of vehicle. Therefore their statements are not trustworthy. They have further stated that when complainant was going to become mother, accused persons forcibly made her to consume medicine, resulting into her miscarriage. When she again conceived, her husband fell her down from motorcycle, so that, she may be aborted. They have also stated that, the accused persons harassed her.
17. Madhubala Singh (P.W. 5), in whose house, the complainant and her husband resided on rent for 2-3 months, has not supported the statement of the complainant and has stated that husband and wife both were living well. In cross-examination, she has stated that complainant had told her that, she wanted that accused Rajnish should live in her maternal house at village Nagpur. Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 6), who also resided in the house of Prakash Singh, husband of P.W. 5, has also not supported the statement of the complainant. 11
18. Vittabala Srivastava (PW-7) is Protection Officer of Child and Women Welfare Department. She has deposed that on 20.03.2017 and again on 10.04.2017 complaints in writing were made by Savita Jaiswal- complainant. She has deposed in para-3 that though she had made complaint, but when she (P.W. 7) stated to inquire the matter, complainant requested not to proceed in the matter. Later on, she again sent a complaint through an anonymous person, since she did not appear, no action was taken. On 24.01.2018 at the request of concerned police, she had conducted counseling of the parties concerned. In report P-23, submitted by three members of Family Welfare Committee, it has been stated that, the complainant does not want to live along with the accused persons/ her in-laws.
19. Dr. Suresh Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 8), who conducted Sonography of the complainant, has stated that on 9-4-2017, he saw that child was not alive (missed abortion), it is not possible to say that the child had died in womb due to any injury and the child may die on its own. Dr. Manjulika Karan (P.W. 9), who also treated the complainant and conducted Sonography (report Ex. P-6) of the complainant, has stated that on 8-4-2017, when complainant came to her, heartbeat of the child was not there, it was a missed abortion. In para 8, she has stated that in 70-80% cases of missed abortion, child dies in the womb on its own. She has admitted the suggestion that, she did not notice any mark of injury on the body of the complainant.
20. From perusal of above evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is found that the complainant in her written complainant, has made allegation 12 regarding demand of vehicle as dowry, but there is no mention of demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- in it, whereas in Court statement, she has alleged for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and various other articles. Therefore, there is material contradiction in her version regarding demand of dowry as to what was the demand. So far as beating the complainant by the accused No. 3 is concerned, except oral version, there is nothing on record which corroborates her above statement. No medical report or otherwise regarding any injury on the body of complainant is found on record. Complainant has alleged that, twice abortion took place, but there is nothing on record to prove that immediately after marriage, abortion had ever taken place due to consumption of medicine. So far as 2nd abortion is concerned, though complainant has alleged that, the accused once intentionally fell her down from the motorcycle and then on 13-3-2017, in the rented house, her husband dragged her, pressed her neck and pressed her abdomen through his leg saying that he would kill her. When she shouted, her husband noticing that neighbours are coming, freed her but in complaint (Ex.P-1), she has stated that, neighbours came and saved her. Her statement is even not supported by independent witnesses Madhubala Singh (P.W. 5) and Dr. Rajendra Pal (P.W. 6) who were neighbours of the complainant. Dr. Suresh Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 8) & Dr. Manjulika Karan (P.W. 9), who conducted Sonography of the complainant, have also not stated in specific terms that the child in womb died due to injury sustained by the complainant. There is no specific allegation against the accused No. 2 and 3 regarding demand of dowry, only bald allegations have been levelled against them. 13
21. In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others -v- State of Telangana and another [(2025) 3 SCC 735], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 as under :-
"27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ..."
22. In the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, [(2025) 3 SCC 756], Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the requirement of sound marriage, has observed in para 32 as under :-
"32. ......The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are 14 mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hypersensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. ...."
23. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, undisputedly, prior to marriage, accused No. 3 was posted on the post of Teacher, whereas complainant was posted as Lecturer i.e. on higher post then the post of husband and they were posted in different places. After marriage, they were residing with the parents of accused No. 3/husband. As per Ex. P-23 i.e. the report and opinion prepared by the Family Welfare Committee, Baikunthpur Distt. Koria (CG), the complainant and accused No. 3 were in relation prior to their marriage. It has also been proved that, the complainant had made complaints twice in the office of respondent No. 7/Women and Child Development, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria. Had there been any cruelty meted out to the complainant by the accused persons, then complainant would be interested in taking concrete action against them, but Vittabala Shrivastava (P.W.
7), Women and Child Development Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria, whom complainant had made complaint twice, has stated in her deposition para 4 that, on receiving complaint, when she told 15 complainant that, she will call her in-laws and husband to enquire the issue, she (complainant) refused to call them and told her that, if her in-laws would be ready to do as per her wish, then only, she (complainant) will tell her about next action. This witness has further stated that, even after calling twice-thrice over phone, the complainant neither received the phone call nor replied. In the report and opinion (Ex. P-23) prepared by the Family Welfare Committee, Baikunthpur Distt. Koria of which Vittabala Shrivastava (P.W.7) was also a member, it has been reported that, from the statement recorded by them, allegations of getting miscarriage by accused persons are not found reliable. The committee also found that, the complainant did not want to live with the accused persons because of lack of understanding between them, therefore, allegation of cruelty was not found reliable by the Committee.
24. As has been discussed in preceding paragraph, there is material contradictions/ omissions in the written complaint and various other statements of complainant. Allegations of beating and forcibly getting miscarriage of complainant also do not get support from medical evidence and evidence of independent witnesses. It is found that, to pacify the quarrel, accused No. 3 / husband also left his home and shifted at Baikunthpur in a rented house with the complainant, despite that, their family relation could not improve. It appears from above discussion that, the complainant herself did not want to carry on her matrimonial life, with her in-laws and even with her husband/accused No. 3, therefore, normal wear and tear have been given colour of 16 dowry harassment/ cruelty, which resulted in dissolution of their marriage, as decree of divorce has been granted in favour of accused No. 3/husband, as informed by learned counsel for the parties.
25. Thus, in view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and there is no illegality or infirmity committed by learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused persons of all the charges. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is affirmed.
26. Accordingly, both the acquittal appeals fail and are dismissed.
27. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned forthwith.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak