-
by sayum
17 February 2026 8:32 AM
“The solitary testimony of the complainant appears exaggerated and unreliable in light of contradictions and delay,” Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the acquittal of a husband accused of assaulting his wife under Section 323 IPC. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput upheld the findings of the appellate court, which had reversed the trial court’s conviction, observing that the complainant’s evidence lacked credibility due to material inconsistencies, lack of medical corroboration, and delayed reporting.
The applicant, Nisha Rani Netam, had filed an FIR alleging that her husband, Krishna Kumar Netam, abused and assaulted her on 15th January 2023 in public, causing injuries to her left cheek, eye, and ear, and threatened to kill her. Following the complaint, police registered a case under Sections 294, 323, and 506 IPC.
The trial court, Sukma, acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 294 and 506 IPC, but convicted him under Section 323 IPC, sentencing him to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The accused challenged the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2024, which was allowed by the Sessions Court, South Bastar, Dantewada, leading to his complete acquittal.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant approached the High Court under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking revision.
Justice Sachin Singh Rajput examined the trial and appellate court records, summarizing that the Sessions Court had based its decision on the following critical aspects: “The report was lodged after five days of delay. No external injury was found on the person of the applicant.”
The Court further noted the appellate judge’s skepticism about the complainant’s choice of medical treatment: “The incident had occurred at Dornapal where hospital and medical assistance is available, whereas the complainant got examined at Kondagaon. This inconsistency raises doubt over the prosecution’s version.”
Additionally, the Sessions Court had found that the case may have been influenced by personal animosity: “The complainant also threatened respondent No.2 by sending messages that she would falsely implicate him in a case.”
On examining the testimony of other witnesses, the High Court observed: “The father of the complainant stated that the report was filed because the husband wanted a divorce. Independent witness Kusumlata (PW3) did not support the prosecution case. Other witnesses too failed to corroborate the complainant’s version.”
Considering the totality of evidence, the appellate court had concluded: “The solitary statement of the applicant cannot be relied upon… benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.”
Justice Rajput emphasized the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction, citing Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165], holding: “The law regarding revisional power is well established and no longer res integra… unless the findings are perverse or contrary to evidence, interference is unwarranted.”
On this basis, the Court held that: “The finding recorded by the appellate Court acquitting the respondent No.2 from the charges under Section 323 IPC cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence.”
The High Court, finding no error in the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Court, dismissed the criminal revision at the admission stage itself. The judgment reiterates the principle that delayed FIRs, lack of injury, absence of medical consistency, and non-corroboration by independent witnesses may cumulatively weaken the prosecution’s case even in matrimonial disputes.
Date of Decision: 7 March 2025
