1 2025:CGHC:37266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2005 Umesh Kumar Kosle, aged About 21 Years, S/o Shri Mahettar Ram Koshale, R/o Near Old Jaistambh, Bhadrapara, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri SK Puriya, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 30.07.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.08.01 14:58:43 +0530 2 Judge, Korba, District Korba in Sessions Trial No.91/2004 convicting the accused/Appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years under Section 304-B IPC and to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A IPC with usual default stipulation. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix leading to the conviction of the Appellant is that deceased Meena Kumari was married to the accused/Appellant approximately 2 years prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that on 22.03.2004, at around 2:00 pm, a heated exchange took place between the deceased and the present Appellant, her husband. As a result of this altercation, the deceased became upset and left the house without informing anyone. Thereafter, the husband i.e. the present Appellant searched his wife and also informed his father-in-law Budhwar Sai (PW-2), who has lodged a missing report at PS Balco Nagar (Ex.P-15). Later on, it was found that the deceased wife committed suicide by hanging from a tree at Basinkhar forest. Merg intimation (Ex.P-9) has been lodged by the husband/Appellant at police station Balco Nagar. Death inquest (Ex.P-5) was carried out and the deceased was subjected to postmortem by Dr. Ku. Veena Agrawal (PW-8) and Dr. Shankar Paliwal (PW-11), who submitted their report (Ex.P-6) and opined that the deceased might have 3 committed suicide by hanging and to rule out any other possibility, they advised for FSL examination. Visera has been preserved and on examination of which, FSL has given its report (Ex.P-14) stating that no poisonous substance was found therein. Shyamlal Anant (PW-10), patwari has prepared spot map (Ex.P-3) & (Ex.P-4) where the deceased committed suicide and the cloth used by her has also been seized (Ex.P-7). After the merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P-13) has been registered on 31.03.2004. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and after committal of case, during trial, the accused/Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-15). Statement of the accused/Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated and has not adduced any defence witness. 4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has, vide its impugned judgment, convicted the present Appellant as aforementioned. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse as there is no reliable evidence showing that the deceased was harassed for demand of dowry. She further submits that FIR (Ex.P-13) has been lodged only after 4 the merg enquiry (Ex.P-9) and no complaint has been made by the parents of the deceased prior to lodging of the FIR and during her life time also, no complaint with regard to demand of dowry has been made. It is further submitted that the deceased left the house over a trivial matter and owing to her hypersensitive disposition, she resorted to taking such an extreme step and immediately after noticing her absence, the husband/Appellant informed his father-in- law Budhwar Sai (PW-2) about the incident, however, he did not lodge any complaint against the Appellant after being informed that his daughter was missing and only a missing report has been lodged. She further submits that a quarrel took place between the couple with regard to consumption of liquor by the Appellant, which does not fall under the ambit of any cruelty on the part the accused/Appellant as defined under Sections 498 and 304-B IPC. She lastly submits that although the parents of the deceased were under the impression that their daughter might have been murdered, they did not allege it to be a case of dowry death. She, therefore, prays that the present Appeal may be allowed. 6. On the flip side, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference. 5 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned with utmost circumspection. 8. Undeniably, the marriage of the deceased Meena Kumari was solemnized approximately two years prior to the date of incident and during her life time, no such complaint was lodged either by herself or her parents with regard to demand of any dowry or harassment meted out by the accused/Appellant. It appears that the deceased wife left the matrimonial home over a minor issue and the present Appellant/husband made earnest efforts to locate her and also informed his father-in-law Budhwar Sai (PW-2). Thereafter, they have reported the matter to police station, Balco Nagar wherein, missing report (Ex.P-15) was lodged by Sub- Inpsector RN Singh (PW-12) on 24.03.2004. In the missing report lodged by the father (PW-2) of the deceased, there is no mention or allegation against the accused/Appellant that he was harassing his wife, particularly in connection with any demand for dowry in which charge sheet has been filed after investigation. The dead body of the deceased was traced out on 27.03.2004 at about 4.30 pm at Basinkhar forest wherein, the deceased was found hanged from a tree, the neck tied with a cloth. Merg intimation (Ex.P-9) has been recorded on the information provided by the Appellant himself. After merg enquiry, on 31.03.2004, FIR (Ex.P-13) has 6 been registered for the offence under Section 306 IPC and after investigation, charge sheet has also been filed on the same count but the trial Court has framed the charge under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC as also under alternate Sections 306 and 302 IPC. Against framing of the charge sheet, Criminal Revision bearing No.460/2004 was preferred which was allowed and the present Appellant was discharged from the offence under Section 302 IPC and the said fact has been recorded in the order sheet of the trial Court on 24.11.2004. The Appellant has also been acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC by the impugned judgment and convicted only for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC though during investigation, no charge sheet has been filed in this regard. Here, provision of Section 498-A IPC is relevant, which reads as under:- “Section 498-A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." Explanation —For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand 7 for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 9. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is explicit that the prosecution is required to prove that the harassment with cruelty mut be consistent by firstly; harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her to meet such demand of dowry and secondly; willful conduct of the husband or relative of the husband of such a nature as is likely to lead the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life which may be physical or mental. In the matter of Smt. Raj Rani vs State (Delhi Administration) reported in (2000) 10 SCC 662, it has been held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context of the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, the Court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further in the matter of Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam reported in (2009) 13 SCC 330, it has been held that it is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC and relevant para-21 reads as under:- "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by 8 considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 10. Recently, in the matter of Achin Gupta vs. & State of Haryana & Anr reported in (2024) LiveLaw SC 343, the supreme Court has reiterated the principle at para-32 of the said judgment that “the Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hypersensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.” Furthermore, to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand for dowry”. The expression “soon before her death” used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 9 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 11 SCC 397 held at para-26 that “term of the period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question and there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. It has been further held therein that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, father of the deceased Budhwar Sai (PW-2) categorically admits in his cross- examination that there was no such issue about demand of dowry or any harassment meted out by the present Appellant. Makhnu Ram (PW-1), uncle of the deceased has given a generalized statement that after one month of the marriage, the Appellant committed marpit on his wife for bringing less dowry but the said fact was missing in the police statement (Ex.P-1). Though Budhwar Sai (PW-2), father of the deceased has stated in his deposition that after one or two months of the marriage, the 10 Appellant used to beat his wife for bringing less dowry but the said fact was not mentioned in his police statement (Ex.P-1). However, this witness has been declared hostile. Veena Bai (PW-3) mother of the deceased has also made a similar nature of statement. Ranjeet Bharatiya (PW-4), neighbor of the deceased has categorically stated that the couple lived happily and that the Appellant even sent his wife to learn tailoring and stitching. 13. On minute scrutiny of the evidence, it is explicit that no demand with regard to dowry was ever made during the lifetime of the deceased and further, generalized statements were given by the relatives of the matrimonial side only after the death of the deceased, however, no one has stated anything as to what kind of dowry demand has been made. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased has committed suicide which has been proved by Dr. Ku. Veena Agrawal (PW-8) and Dr. Shankar Paliwal (PW-11) by their report (Ex.P-6). Furthermore, after the incident, the parents of the deceased have also participated in the funeral that took place at the village of the Appellant. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the deceased wife herself has left the house owing to a trivial issue with the Appellant/husband and thereafter she has taken such an extreme step and the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable evidence stating that the Appellant, in any 11 manner, has ever harassed his wife for demand of dowry and it is quite clear from the above facts and circumstances of the case that during their married life, they both had lived happily, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not justifiable, which is accordingly set aside and the accused/Appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The Appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the Appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. 15. Consequently, the instant Appeal is Allowed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya