1 2025:CGHC:25941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.70 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus Rambandhu Nirmalkar S/o Maniram Nirmalkar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri R. N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shotabdi Bagdi, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Sumit Singh, counsel for the respondent. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 19.06.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Sessions Trial No.22/2017, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that a written report (Ex.P/8) was lodged by one Brij Kumar Bareth before the Police Station-Mulmula, alleging therein that the marriage of his sister-Sanu Nirmalkar, (the deceased), was solemnized with the respondent- SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 accused sometimes in the year 2010 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals and a son, namely, Atul Kumar, aged about 5 years was born out of their wedlock. It is alleged by him that since the date of her marriage, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband while consuming liquor. It is alleged further that on 02.01.2017, it was informed by his sister to him, mother-Urmila as also to father-Janak Ram Bareth regarding the alleged assault and they have pacified that after some time, he would improve himself and on the date of incident, i.e.12.01.2017, it was revealed after inquiry with the respondent- Rambandhu Nirmalkar that his sister has died, because of pouring kerosene oil on herself and accordingly, it was alleged that his sister has committed suicide owing to the alleged harassment and maltreatment given by her husband. 3. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P/9) was registered by the Police Station-Mulmula against the respondent in connection with Crime No.05/2017 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/5 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Rashmi Dahire (PW-3), who vide her report Ex.P/4 opined the cause of death to be asphyxia, which was occurred due to ante-mortem injury leading to cardio respiratory arrest, shock and death. During the course of investigation, the statement of the relatives of the deceased was recorded and after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and the matter was thereafter committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, where the 3 charges mentioned herein-above have been framed, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the mother-Urmila (PW-4), brother-Brij Kumar Bareth (PW-7) and son of the deceased, namely, Atul Kumar (PW-5), held that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of mother-Urmila (PW-4), brother-Brij Kumar Bareth (PW-7) and son of the deceased, namely, Atul Kumar (PW-5), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 7. Ms. 7. Ms. Shotabdi Bagdi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to the statement of mother of the deceased-Urmila (PW-4) and brother of the deceased-Brij Kumar Bareth (PW-7), submits that there is gross disparity in their statements regarding the mode of harassment meted out by the respondent to his wife, nor their testimonies are found to be supported by the son of the deceased Atul 4 Kumar (PW-5), and therefore, the trial Court has not erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. Before considering the propriety of the judgment passed by the trial Court, acquitting the Respondent from the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, it would be appropriate to see the approach, which is required to be adopted, while dealing with an acquittal appeal. In the matter of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1934, Privy Council 227(2), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, considered the provisions relating to the power of an appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and observed as under :- “....But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as: (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice.” 5 10. While following the aforesaid principles, it was held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 at paragraph 16 as under :- “16. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court”. 11. Likewise, in the matter of Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1961, SC 715, the approach of the appellate court while considering a judgment of acquittal was discussed and it was observed that unless, the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the acquittal was perverse, it could not be set aside. The relevant observations made at paragraph 9 reads as under :- “9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup case, reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 (2), afford a correct guide for the appellate court’s approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) “substantial and compelling reasons”, (ii) “good and sufficiently cogent reasons”, and (iii) “strong reasons” are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should 6 not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.” 12. Similar is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 225 at paragraph 7 as under :- “7….While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.” 13. And, in the matter of Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1997) 7 SCC, 110, the Supreme Court at paragraph 16 has set out the following principles :- “16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court. These principles have been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated as under :- (1) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers, and 7 nothing less than the powers, it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. (2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) Before reversing the findings of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. (4) In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. (5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. (6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness box. (7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused.” 8 14. While keeping the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in order to ascertain the fact as to whether the respondent is involved in connection with the alleged crime or not. 15. The respondent, who is the husband of the deceased, namely, Sanu Nirmalkar, was charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 12.01.2017. According to the prosecution, the deceased, whose marriage was solemnized with the respondent sometimes in the year 2010, has committed suicide while pouring kerosene oil on herself, because of ill-treatment given by her husband. 16. In order to establish the alleged allegations that on account of ill-treatment given by the respondent, the deceased has taken such a extreme step of ending her life, the mother, brother and son of the deceased were mainly examined. According to the statement of mother of the deceased-Urmila (PW-4), it appears that 4 to 5 months after the solemnization of marriage of her daughter, she lived happily with her husband, but thereafter, at the instance of her in-laws, she was maltreated and assaulted by her husband and his elder brother and she had raised a suspicion that because of the alleged ill-treatment, her daughter has committed suicide. Further of her evidence would reveal the fact that he has not made any complaint to the Police regarding the alleged allegations when she was interrogated by them on the date of the incident. 17. Brother of the deceased, namely, Brij Kumar Bareth, was examined as PW-7 and it appears from his evidence that initially 1-2 years of the 9 marriage of his sister, they used to live happily, but thereafter, his brother-in-law, the respondent herein, while consuming liquor, used to assault and maltreat his sister by abusing her. It, thus, appears that there is gross disparity in their (PW-4 and PW-7) statements regarding the ill-treatment as was alleged by the prosecution. That apart, the son of the deceased, namely, Atul Kumar (PW-5) has, however, not stated anywhere that his mother was harassed and maltreated by his father and instead, what is stated by him, is that on the date of incident, his mother was assaulted by his father i.e. the respondent-accused with the aid of stick, when she refused to give the pass-book demanded by him for withdrawal of the amount. 18. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be said that the deceased was continuously harassed or maltreated by her husband, the respondent herein, and because of that, she has taken such a extreme step of committing suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself. 19. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is, dismissed. SD/- /-SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Tumane