Chattisgarh High Court

Shweta Sharma vs Nagesh Sharma And Others on 23 January, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                      1




                                                       2025:CGHC:4268


                                                                        NAFR



            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR



                           ACQA No. 155 of 2015


1 - Shweta Sharma W/o Nagesh Sharma, aged about 35 years, R/o L-15,
Krishna Nagar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur
(C.G.)
                                                              ---Appellant
                                   Versus


1 - Nagesh Sharma, S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 23 years, R/o Shanti
Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).


2 - Prahallad Sharma S/o Late Bhuwan Lal Sharma, aged about 58 years,
R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur
(C.G.).


3 - Smt. Vimal Sharma W/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 50 years, R/o
Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur
(C.G.).


4 - Shailendra Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o
Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur
(C.G.).
5 - Rupesh Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Shanti
Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).
                                           2



6 - State of Chhattisgarh, through SHO Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
                                                               --- Respondents

For Appellant : Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, on behalf of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, District- Raipur, (C.G.)

---Appellant

Versus

1 - Nagesh Sharma, S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 23 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).

2 - Prahallad Sharma S/o Late Bhuwan Lal Sharma, aged about 58 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).

3 - Smt. Vimal Sharma W/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 50 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).

4 - Shailendra Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).

5 - Rupesh Sharma S/o Prahallad Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Shanti Vihar, Daganiya, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.).

--- Respondents

For State/Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23.01.2025

1. Since the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals

are similar, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this

common order.

2. These present acquittal appeals are preferred against the judgment

dated 25.02.2015 passed by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge,

Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2011, whereby the learned

appellate Court allowed the appeal of respondents/accused persons

and set aside the judgment dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate- First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in

Criminal Cases No. 390/2010, whereby the respondents/accused

have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 498(A)

of IPC and under Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant Shweta

Sharma to respondent No. 1- Nagesh Sharma was solemnized on

04.05.2005 and the other accused persons/respondents are the

father, mother and brothers of respondent No. 1. It is alleged by the

complainant that after the marriage of complainant, all accused

persons demanded car and other articles and tortured her. On

21.11.2005 in the night, the respondents took her on the terrace and

beaten her and thereby made an attempt to make her fall down from

the terrace. The husband/respondent No. 1 has also caused abortion

of the complainant/appellant. On 22.11.2005, the mother of the

appellant brought complainant from Pune to Raipur and at Raipur she

lodged report at Mahila Thana under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 of

IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned trial

Court passed judgment on 22.12.2010 and convicted all the

appellants under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3,4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Against this judgment dated 22.12.2010,

the accused persons/respondents filed appeal before the IXth

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) vide impugned judgment

dated 25.02.2015 and the learned appellate Court allowed their

appeal and acquitted them of the said charges. Hence, the present

acquittal appeals filed by the appellant/complainant Shweta Sharma

in ACQA No. 155 of 2015 and ACQA 80/2017 filed by the

appellant/State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submits that

the learned trial Court rightly convicted the respondents. The

complainant and the other witnesses have categorically stated

against the respondents, but the learned trial Court minutely

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and rightly convicted

the accused persons/respondents, but the learned appellate Court did

not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and

wrongly acquitted the accused persons/respondents. So, the

judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is bad, improper and

against the law, as well as facts of the case. As such, this judgment is

liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned trial

Court is liable to be restored.

5. Reliance has been placed on the decision of The Public Prosecutor,

High Court of..... Vs. Veldend Jaya Prakash reported in 1997

CRILJ196.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the

impugned judgment submits that the learned appellate Court minutely

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted

the accused persons/respondents. Therefore, these appeals are

without any merit and the same are liable to dismissed.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024

(Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors.

Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

(ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it

must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record including the impugned judgment.

9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court and the record of the

learned Appellate Court that the learned trial Court framed charges

against the respondents/accused persons under Sections 498-A of

IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Against this

judgment the accused persons/respondents filed an appeal before

the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) vide impugned

judgment dated 25.02.2015 and the learned appellate Court allowed

their appeal and acquitted them of the said charges.

10. Before the learned trial Court, the complainant Shweta Sharma (PW-

01) stated in her examination-in-chief that all the accused persons

tortured her for car and other articles to which they have demanded

as a dowry. On 23.12.2005, her husband took her to the terrace and

beaten her and tried to push her down from the terrace and forcefully

committed abortion to her. The complainant's mother brought her

back to Raipur from Pune and then she lodged F.I.R vide Ex. P/02

and she also filed written complaint Ex. P/01 and documents of her

daughter's treatment regarding abortion.

11.The learned appellate Court finds that in cross-examination of the

complainant, she admitted that at the time of engagement and

marriage, there was no demand for dowry made by the accused

persons/respondents. The learned appellate Court has minutely

appreciated the statement of the complainant (PW-01) Shweta

Sharma and her mother Sushma Tiwari (PW-02) and her brother

Vikas Tiwari (PW-03) and finds that there are major contradictions in

the statements of all witnesses, the learned appellate Court also

appreciated the statements of defence witness Maniram Sharma

(DW-01) and finds that statement of prosecution witnesses are not

reliable and also finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused

persons/respondents and allowed their appeal.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024

(Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors.

Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

(ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

13. In the light of above judgment, it is clear that the learned appellate

Court considered all grounds of appeal and also minutely appreciated

statements of all witnesses and also appreciated the documents filed

by the prosecution, rightly allowed the appeal of the accused

persons/respondents.

14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the cases, the finding

recorded by learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to

the record, as such, the same does not want any interference by this

Court. These appeals are bereft of any merit and the same are liable to

be and are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-