State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sanjay And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4088 Chatt

                                1

                                                                 NAFR
      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
             Acquittal Appeal No. 381 of 2010


  State of Chhattisgarh.

                                                  ­­­Appellant

                               Versus

1. Sanjay, Aged about 26 years, S/o Bhukhanlal.

2. Vinod   alias     Channu,    Aged    about     27    years,   S/o
  Bhukhanlal.

3. Manoj   alias     Mannu,     Aged    about    28     years,   S/o
  Bhukhanlal.

4. Bhukhanlal, Aged about 56 years, S/o Jagannath
  Kurmi.

5. Smt.    Mongara     Bai,    Aged     about    52     years,   W/o
  Bhukhanlal.

  Above    all   R/o    Gram    Domanpur,       Thana    Takhatpur,
  Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Savitri Bai, Aged about 19 years, W/o Ashok Kurmi
  R/o at present Dhodhtti, Thana Pandariya, Distt.
  Kawardha, Chhattisgarh.

                                                  ­­Respondents




  For Appellant/State :­ Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.
  For Respondent:­            Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate




      Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
     Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                 Judgment on Board
                     28/06/2022
                                       2

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the

impugned judgment dated 31/03/2004 by which

learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur has

acquitted respondents No. 1 and 5 from charges

punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

2. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel on behalf

of the appellant/State, would submit that learned

Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in

acquitting respondents No. 1 and 5 from the

aforesaid offences by recording a finding which

is perverse and contrary to the record, as such,

the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to

be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned

counsel for the respondent, would submit that

since prosecution has failed to bring home the

offences, therefore, learned Special Judge, after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on

record, has rightly acquitted respondents No. 1

and 5 from the aforesaid offences, as such, the

instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant/State, considered his submissions and

perused the record with utmost circumspection.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on

and 5 along with the other appellants treated

Sunti Bai (P.W.­4) with cruelty saying that she

did not bring sufficient dowry with her and also

tortured her mentally and physically and with the

intention of burning her and causing her death,

poured kerosene oil over her body and thereby

committed the aforesaid offence.

6. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is

that in the year 2000, the marriage of Kunti Bai

Sanjay at village Peeparkhoonta. After 15 days of

marriage, when she started residing at her

matrimonial home, the respondents started

treating her with cruelty by taunting that she

has not brought sufficient dowry with her and

also started assaulting her. Four days prior to

Diwali festival, appellant No. 1 Sanjay assaulted

Sunti Bai (P.W.­4) about which she informed to

her parents. Thereafter, her father along with

her uncle and other villagers came to her

matrimonial home to take her along with them but

the respondents started abusing them and

appellant No. 1 Sanjay poured kerosene oil over

Sunti Bai with the intention of killing her.

7. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence on record, has clearly

come to the conclusion that there is no evidence

have treated Sunti Bai with cruelty and

furthermore, there is no evidence on record to

hold appellants No. 1 and 5 guilty of offence

punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

8. A careful perusal of the statement of Sunti Bai

(P.W­4) would show that her statement suffers

from major contradictions and omissions and

learned trial Court has rightly held that her

statement cannot be relied upon to convict

respondents No. 1 and 5 for the aforesaid

offences. Moreover, there is a delay in lodging

FIR. As such, we are of the considered opinion

that the findings recorded by the trial Court

while acquitting respondents No. 1 and 5 from the

aforesaid charges does not require any

interference from this Court in view of limited

scope of interference in appeal against

acquittal. We do not find any merit in this

appeal.

9. The instant appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

               Sd/­                                         Sd/­
     (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                (Sachin Singh Rajput)
             Judge                                   Judge


Harneet