[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
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)
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.
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
(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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
