In a significant legal development of Afsana v/s Sarfaraj Ahamad Mainodin Patel & Others, the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant—who is the first informant and complainant in the case—has been dismissed, with both the trial and appellate courts' judgments upholding the acquittal of the accused. The Appellant had sought to overturn the acquittal of Respondents 1 through 9, who were exonerated in connection with alleged offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Background: Allegations, Demands, and Dispute Timeline
The case dates back to a marriage between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 (the husband) on June 26, 2011. The relationship had reportedly begun through mutual association with the Students Federation of India before they wed. According to the Appellant, significant financial expenses were incurred by her mother for the wedding, including the gifting of a 2 tola gold ring and Rs. 50,000 in cash.
The prosecution claimed that, soon after their marriage, Respondent No. 1 and his family subjected the Appellant to cruelty by making unlawful financial demands. Two specific instances of alleged coercion and demands were cited:
The first demand, dated January 7, 2012, allegedly saw the Respondent demand Rs. 1,50,000 via a telephonic request. It was alleged that during this encounter, the Appellant was assaulted, sustaining injuries, but this was unsupported by corroborative evidence such as medical records.
The second demand, on September 18, 2012, allegedly involved Respondents coercing the Appellant to hand over Rs. 1,50,000 for Respondent No. 1’s transfer from one posting to another in Solapur. Reports also claimed that Respondents threatened the Appellant, though the exact circumstances of these threats remained unclear. Despite these allegations, both the trial and appellate courts found insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the claims made by the Appellant.
Trial Court's Findings: Evidence Falls Short
The trial court's judgment, issued on January 18, 2019, found numerous inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the Appellant and her witnesses. Of particular note:
Evidence from prosecution witnesses—namely the Appellant herself (PW-4) and her mother (PW-3) and sister (PW-2)—indicated that the alleged demands did not occur as claimed. The witnesses themselves admitted that their relationship with the Respondent had no major issues until January 2014.
Crucially, the first demand was based on a supposed financial need for a job recruitment process. However, the evidence showed that Respondent No. 1 was already employed as a teacher in a Zilla Parishad school before his marriage.
Both Courts found the Appellant’s failure to report these demands at the time they allegedly occurred troubling, particularly given delays in filing the complaint (first in 2014, long after the alleged incidents).
Appellate Court Confirms Acquittal:
Following the trial court's acquittal, the Appellant filed a criminal appeal, challenging the judgment. The Sessions Court analyzed the same evidence and reached the same conclusion: the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The appellate court specifically highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence and the reliability of the prosecution’s key witnesses.
Final Verdict: No Proof, No Case
After a careful review of the evidence and the two Courts' findings, the higher court chose not to intervene in the judgments. Both the trial court’s and appellate court’s decisions were upheld, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant. The judgment confirmed that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment also scrutinized key timelines, inconsistencies in witness accounts, and gaps in corroborative proof—factors that ultimately weakened the prosecution's claims.
Conclusion: Appeal Dismissed
With the appeal now dismissed, the acquittal of the accused remains intact. There has been no evidence found to prove the accusations of cruelty, dowry demand, or assault. The case underscores the necessity of strong evidence and corroboration in criminal proceedings.
The dismissal resolves the long-standing marital dispute, as the appeal and subsequent investigation failed to establish the alleged wrongdoing. Pending applications related to the appeal are now also disposed of.
Section 323., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 504., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
