Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Jagvanti Yadav vs Ramlal Yadav on 3 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11129
NIKITA
JAIN NAFR
Digitally signed
by NIKITA JAIN
Date: 2026.03.03 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
18:02:04 +0530
ACQA No. 267 of 2021
1 - Smt. Jagvanti Yadav W/o Ramkishun Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Vinayakpur, P. S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh ... Appellant
versus
1 - Ramlal Yadav S/o Late Shri Raghuveer Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Vinayakpur, P. S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Phulkumari W/o Ramlal Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Vinayakpur, P. S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate appears along with Shri Pawas Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Pankaj Kamlesh, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.3 : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 03/03/2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 14.09.2021, passed by the Sessions Judge Balrampur, Place 2 Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Case No.21/2019, whereby the learned appellate Court, while reversing the judgment dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Criminal Case No.273/2013, has acquitted respondents No.1 & 2 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part -II of IPC read with Sections 4 & 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents, who are husband and wife, were charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above on the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P.-1) lodged by the complainant before the Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur on 26.08.2012, wherein it was alleged that on 08.08.2012, when she was alone at her home, respondent No.1 came along with his wife at 11:00 a.m. and started abusing her using filthy words, while alleging that she is involved in the witchcraft and was threatened by them to kill. Based upon the alleged allegation, the26 respondents were charge-sheeted as such.
3. In order to establish the the alleged allegation, the complainant was examined as PW-1, while her husband was examined as PW-2 and after considering their statements, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj vide its order dated 28.03.2019 convicted respondent No.1 - Ramlal Yadav for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part -II of IPC read with Sections 4 & 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005, while his wife - Smt. Phulkumari under Sections 4 & 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005.
3
4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid conviction, the respondents have preferred an appeal and, the learned appellate Court vide its judgment under appeal dated 14.09.2021 has acquitted them for the offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court, while reversing the findings of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, acquitting the respondents, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record as evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the complainant and her husband have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting them as such.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 have supported the impugned judgment of the acquittal as passed by the appellate Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the incident was occurred on 08.08.2012 when the complainant was alone at home. According to the report lodged by her, it appears that on the said fateful day, i.e., on 08.08.2012 at 11:00 a.m., respondent No.1- Ramlal came to her house along with his wife Smt. Phulkumari, respondent No.2 and started abusing her using filthy words while alleging that she is involved in witchcraft and was threatened by them to kill. It further appears from perusal of the record that although the incident was occurred on 08.08.2012 but no report as such was lodged either by her or by her husband on the said day and instead, it appears to have been lodged 4 only on 26.08.2012. That apart, it appears from her (PW-1) statement that she never went to Police Station on 08.08.2012 for lodging the report with regard to the incident occurred on said date and, instead had gone to the Police Station on 26.08.2012. It appears further from her testimony that on 13.08.2012, she went to the office of Superintendent of Police Balrampur and thereafter went to the Police Station for lodging the report on 26.08.2012, but from para 15 of her testimony, it appears that she had not gone to the Superintendent of Police office Balrampur on 13.08.2012. Her husband was examined as PW-2 and, according to him, it appears that he went to the office of Superintendent of Police on 13.08.2012 along with his wife, but no material as such has been placed on record that they went to the said office on 13.08.2012. There is, thus, material disparities in their testimonies even with regard to lodging of the report. It is to be seen further, as revealed from their testimonies, that there exits a land dispute between the husband of the complainant and the respondent No.1 and, the incident, which occurred on 08.08.2012, but no explanation was offered as to why the report was lodged after passing of such a considerable period on 26.08.2012. The trial Court has, therefore, not erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to to call for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court acquitting the respondents No.1 & 2 from the commission of the alleged crime.
9. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
Nikita (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE