Facts
The appellant (complainant) married Respondent No. 6 on January 22, 2006
Source reference: p. 2She alleged that while living in Italy, her husband maintained an illicit relationship and physically assaulted her when she objected
Source reference: p. 2Following a village compromise, she returned to Italy in July 2007 but was allegedly maltreated again and brought back to her in-laws’ house in August 2007
Source reference: p. 3She alleged her in-laws demanded ₹5 lakhs and that her husband telephonically threatened to kill her brother if she approached the police
Source reference: p. 3An FIR was registered on August 29, 2007, under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC
Source reference: p. 3The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh, initially convicted the respondents on June 23, 2018
Source reference: p. 2However, the Additional Sessions Judge, acting as the appellate court, reversed this decision and acquitted the respondents on November 27, 2019
Source reference: p. 1-2The appellant subsequently challenged this acquittal in the High Court.
Source reference: no citationIssues
Whether the appellate court committed an illegality or impropriety in reversing the conviction and acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC
Source reference: p. 2Law Applied
The court examined the requirements for conviction under Section 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Source reference: p. 1, 4It applied the standard of appellate review for appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, focusing on whether the lower court’s findings were perverse or contrary to the evidence on record
Source reference: p. 1, 4Reasoning
The High Court found material contradictions and deviations in the prosecution's evidence.
Source reference: p. 3It noted that the prosecutrix's testimony (PW-1) significantly diverged from her initial written complaint (Ex. P-1)
Source reference: p. 3While the written report alleged the in-laws demanded ₹5 lakhs, her oral testimony claimed the demand was made by her husband via a landline call from an unknown location
Source reference: p. 3-4Furthermore, her claim regarding the threat to her brother’s life was not supported by the brother (PW-3), who failed to corroborate her version in his evidence
Source reference: p. 4The father’s (PW-6) testimony also contradicted her account regarding the specifics of the threat
Source reference: p. 4The court determined that these inconsistencies weakened the credibility of the allegations of cruelty and criminal intimidation
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court held that the appellate court did not commit any illegality in reversing the trial court’s judgment, as the evidence provided by the prosecutrix and her relatives was inconsistent and uncorroborated
The High Court affirmed the acquittal of the respondents and dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit
Source reference: p. 4-5Original Court PDF
SMT. ANJALI TIWARIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in