Chattisgarh High Court
Vijendra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:41180
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1189 of 2016
Vijendra S/o Jagdish Prasad Vaishnav Aged About 38 Years R/o Bhola Chaal, Tilak
Nagar, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant
versus
Digitally
signed by
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA
Date: State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2025.08.18
... Non-applicant
17:58:33
+0530
For Applicant : Shri Anurag Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
14/08/2025
1.
The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2016 passed
in Criminal Appeal No.42/2011 by the Additional Judge to the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Dist. Korba whereby judgment dated
16.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, Dist.
Korba in Criminal Case No. 119/2003 convicting the applicant under Section
498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year with fine of
Rs.300/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo further RI for two months, has
been confirmed by the learned appellate Court.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant - Snehalata Amin
(P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P.2) at Police Station Katghora on
07.01.2003 that her marriage was solemnised with the applicant in 1998 and
after marriage they were living together in village Podi Shankar and
thereafter her in-laws, namely Durgavati and Jagdeesh started torturing her
for demand of dowry. In July 2002, at the behest of her in-laws, her husband
made demand of Rs.50,000/- from her father - bharat Vaishnav (P.W.2). It is
her further case that in greed of dowry, her in-laws wanted to get her
husband married again and in this connection, the applicant on 06.12.2012
came to her and asked her permission for his marriage and when she
refused, he threatened her. Thereater, she gave a birth to girl child, but her
husband did not come to her house even after being called. On the basis of
her report, F.I.R. under Crime No.24/2003 was registered against the
applicant and his parents. During investigation, statements were recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 498-A/34 of
IPC was filed before J.M.F.C. Katghora where the applicant and other co-
accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence while claiming
trial.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, acquitted the other co-
accused persons, i.e. parents of the applicant under Section 498-A IPC but
convicted the applicant as shown in para 1. However, the appellate Court,
vide its judgment dated 20.12.2016 confirmed the judgment passed by the
J.M.F.C. Hence, this revision by the applicant.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had
not demanded any amount from his wife or from her parents and in fact, the
demand of dowry is not proved by the prosecution. He further submits that
there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of P.W.1
prosecutrix and written report (Ex.P.1) and that, the written report (Ex.P.1)
was lodged without any basis and the same has not been duly corroborated
by P.W.1 Smt. Snehalata and P.W.2 Bharat Vaishnav, father-in-law, however,
both the learned Courts have erroneously recorded the finding of conviction,
which warrants interference by this Court.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the trial Court and the
appellate Court, after proper appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and other
prosecution witnesses, has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant
under Section 498-A IPC, therefore, there is no ground for interference in the
judgments.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record minutely.
8. P.W.1 Smt. Snehlata has stated that in the year 2000 her husband (present
applicant) has sought permission from her for second marriage and when
she refused to grant him for second marriage, then her husband demanded
for Rs.50,000/- or one acre of land as he remained in her parental house as
Ghar - Daamaad, however, she was unable to give him money or land,
therefore, the applicant had left her house and went back to his parents'
house. She has further stated that her in-laws used to harass her for
demand of dowry that they would abuse her and her husband, due to which,
she came to her parental house accompanied by her husband and except
this, no incident was happened and has further stated that she lodged a
report at Police Station, which is marked as Ex.P.1. As per her statement,
her husband was demanding Rs.50,000/- or one acre of land whereas written
report (Ex.P.2) would show that after their marriage, they were living
peacefully. The report would further state that from the year 2000 her
husband started visiting his parental house and at their behest, he demanded
for Rs.50,000/- from her father P.W.2 Bharat Das Vaishnav. She has further
mentioned that her in-laws did not take any steps to reconcile him back to
their house for almost five years and on the contrary, in order to ensure her
abandonment, they purchased a motorcycle and four computers for her
husband. Her statement does not inspire confidence as she has stated on
one hand that in the year 2000 the alleged demand was made by her
husband and on the other hand, she has mentioned that in the year 2002 her
husband was demanding Rs.50,000/- in cash from her father P.W.2 Bharat
Das Vaishnav, but it was not her statement that the said amount was
demanded by her husband from her (complainant). Therefore, it is clear that
her statement is contracted with the report (Ex.P.2). Further, P.W.2 Bharat
Das Vaishnav has stated that the husband told his wife (Snehalata) either
give him Rs.50,000/- in cash or one acre of land or else he would perform
second marriage, but her report (Ex.P.2) would not show that the alleged
demand was made by her husband before her (complainant).
9. If the statements of above witnesses are considered together, then it is not
clear that the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the applicant was
either before P.W.1 Smt. Snehlata (complainant) or before her father P.W.2
Bharat Das Vaishnav. It is also clear that there are inconsistencies in their
statements and do not corroborate with each other. Further, alleged demand
of Rs.50,000/- or one acre of land has not been specifically mentioned in
report (Ex.P.2). More so, the investigating officer has not been examined to
substantiate the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. In short, it needs to
be stated that the evidence on record is not sufficient to constitute the
offence under Section 498-A IPC against the applicant.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the availability of
the evidence, I am of the opinion that the evidence brought by prosecution is
not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the
applicant in the present case, therefore, the applicant deserves to be
acquitted of such offence. Accordingly, it is held that the applicant is
acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
11. As a result of what has been stated above, the revision stands allowed and
the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
12. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail and his bail bonds, therefore, his
bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view
of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
