Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rashmi Dey Moghe vs Siddharth Dey on 13 February, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.02.13
16:59:05
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 175 of 2016
• Smt. Rashmi Dey (Moghe), W/o Siddharth Dey, aged about 41 Years, D/o-
M.G. Moghe, R/o - Vishal Nagar, Green Paradise, Behind Chhattisgarh
Hotel, Puraina Raipur, Tahsil and District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
...Applicant
versus
• Siddharth Dey, S/o - Ashish Dey, aged about 43 Years, R/o. - Avelina,
Hiranandani Estate, Thane East Maharashtra.
Second Address - C/o Ashish Dey, House No. 568, Priyadarshni
Nagar, Police Station - New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District
- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Alternate Address - Siddharth Dey, aged about - 43 Years, S/o Ashish
Dey, R/o 1302 Impact Construction, Silicon Building, Near Sonata
Tower, Behind Miraj Apartments, Jal Kalyan Nagar, Malad West
Mumbai Maharastra , Maharashtra.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
13.02.2025
Heard.
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2015 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2015,
while affirming the judgment dated 12.03.2015 passed in Criminal
Complaint Case No.3032/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
2
Raipur, C.G, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 323
of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). However, the trial Court has
given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to
the applicant and directed her to furnish a bond with a surety of
Rs.5,000/-, subject to condition that she shall maintain good conduct
and behaviour for a period of one year.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant is the wife of
respondent who left the respondent in April-May, 2011 and started
living at Raipur. It is alleged that Divorce Petition case No.285-A/2013
filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Case
No.230/2013 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. were pending before
the Family Court, Raipur. On 24.08.2013, on the direction of Family
Court, respondent/complainant and applicant were present in the
counselling room of the Family Court, Raipur for reconciliation and
during that period, some dispute arose between them and in that
event, present applicant abused the respondent filthily and slapped
him on his left cheek in front of two counsellors who were present in
the room. Thereafter, the matter was reported by the respondent to
Principal Judge and after that, respondent/complainant informed about
the incident to Police Station, Gol Bazar, Raipur, but no action was
taken against the applicant, then he filed a complaint case and prayed
for action against the applicant under Section 323 of IPC.
3. The Court of JMFC took cognizance of the matter and framed charge
under Section 323 of IPC against the applicant. The applicant abjured
the guilt.
4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the Court of learned JMFC, convicted the applicant as
mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was
challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate
Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2015, dismissed the appeal
upholding the judgment of the learned JMFC. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as
well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence
available on record, were not justified in convicting the applicant for
the aforesaid offence. He further submits that two independent
witnesses namely PW-2 Shamim Rehman and PW-3 Ashalata
Awasthi, counsellors, have not supported the version of the
respondent that at the time of counselling proceedings, applicant
slapped the respondent. He also submits that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the statement of
complainant/respondent. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel
for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled
against her.
6. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent, while supporting the
impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as
Appellate Court have rightly convicted the applicant and there is no
illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record available with utmost circumspection.
8. Complainant/PW-1 Siddharth Dey has stated in his deposition that on
24.08.2013, on the direction of Family Court, he and applicant were
present in the counselling room of the Family Court, Raipur for
counselling and during counselling proceedings, some dispute arose
between them and in that event, present applicant abused him filthily
and slapped him on his left cheek in front of said two counsellors who
were present in the room. However, on the contrary in cross-
examination at para 14, he admitted that applicant has not assaulted
him in front of counsellors during counselling proceedings took place
at Family Court. He also admitted that before him, his wife/applicant
had filed a report against him under Section 294, 506 and 323 of IPC
in connection with incident happened on 24.08.2013. This apart, PW-2
Shamim Rehman, counsellor, admitted in his cross-examination that
according to him, incident took place at around 12-12:30 pm, but
complainant/PW-1, on the contrary, has stated that incident took place
at around 1:45 pm. Besides, PW-2 Shamim Rehman and PW-3
Ashalata Tiwari, counsellors, have also admitted in their cross-
examinations that they did not see the applicant assaulting the
respondent.
9. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there
are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-1
Siddharth Dey and his statement does not corroborate with the
statements of other witnesses. Apart from this, PW-1 Siddharth Dey
has admitted that due to slap, he received swelling on his cheek, but
there is no medical evidence on record to show that
respondent/complainant received any injury due to slap by the
applicant. As such, sole testimony of PW-1 Siddharth Dey is not
reliable as he has exaggerated his version as an afterthought and that
prosecution has also failed to bring on record any cogent and
clinching evidence which would show the complicity of the applicant in
the crime in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal on
the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court as well as
Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting the applicant for
the aforesaid offence.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the
Court of JMFC dated 12.03.2015 and that of Appellate Court dated
09.12.2015 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant
is acquitted of the charge under Section 323 of IPC by extending her
the benefit of doubt.
11. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Akhilesh
