The High Court of Jharkhand has dismissed an acquittal appeal filed by a victim, upholding the trial court’s decision to acquit her husband and in-laws of charges involving dowry harassment and attempted rape. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, observed that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations through reliable evidence and noted the possibility of false implication.
Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged on August 8, 2020, by the victim at Jamtara (Mahila) Police Station. The victim alleged that following her marriage to Md. Taleb Ansari (Respondent No. 4) on May 6, 2017, her husband, father-in-law (Rajauddin Ansari), and nandoshi (Sultan Ansari) began demanding an additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000.
She further alleged that due to non-fulfillment of the demand, she was subjected to cruelty. Specific allegations were made against Sultan Ansari and Rajauddin Ansari for molestation and an attempted rape on July 10, 2020, while the victim was at her parental home. After investigation, charges were framed under Sections 498A/34, 376/511 of the IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On January 20, 2025, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara, acquitted all respondents, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellant (the victim) argued that the trial court erred in discarding the testimonies of key witnesses—the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), maternal uncle (PW-5), and father (PW-10)—simply because they were relatives. It was contended that the investigating officers also supported the fact that several ‘Panchayatis’ were held to resolve the dispute, which the accused failed to attend.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondents and the learned A.P.P. for the State defended the acquittal. They pointed out a significant 28-day delay in lodging the FIR without reasonable explanation. They argued that the allegations were “general and omnibus” in nature, lacking specific dates and times, and were instituted as a “pressure tactic to humiliate the respondents.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court meticulously examined the deposition of the victim (PW-2). It noted that while she claimed her nandoshi attempted to rape her on July 10, 2020, she admitted in cross-examination that “prior to the incident… she has made no complaint regarding any demand of dowry, consequent torture or anything against any of the accused persons.”
The Bench observed several inconsistencies:
- Separation Period: The victim had been residing at her parental home for approximately two years prior to the alleged occurrence.
- Lack of Independent Witnesses: Although the victim claimed to have raised an alarm during the incident at her parental home, she admitted that “none of the villagers arrived there except her mother and father.”
- Hearsay Evidence: Key witnesses, including the victim’s father, mother, and maternal uncle, had no personal knowledge of the specific incident and were found to be hearsay witnesses.
- Hostile Witnesses: Four prosecution witnesses were declared hostile.
The Court remarked:
“The evidence of witnesses… categorically goes to show that there was tense relationship between the victim and her husband… The genesis manner and place of occurrence as depicted in the F.I.R. and the presence of accused Sultan Ansari (nandoshi) at the relevant time of occurrence has not been proved through cogent and reliable evidence.”
The Bench further agreed with the trial court’s assessment that the “possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstance of case.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and no valid reason to interfere with the trial court’s findings.
“We concur with the findings and conclusion recorded by the learned Trial Court as there is no valid reason to take a different view,” the judgment stated. Consequently, the Acquittal Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission.
Case Details
- Case Title: Victim -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & Others
- Case No.: Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 45 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- Date: February 25, 2026
