1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 481 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on 28.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on 08.05.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, P.S. Nawagarh, District Durg, C.G. ...Appellant versus • Raju Kumhar Prajapati, S/o Pheroo Kumhar, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Kheri, P.S. Nawagarh, Distt.-Durg, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 09.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.08/2009, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-2 Feru, father of the accused/respondent, lodged a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) stating therein AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.05.08 14:43:41 +0530 2 that on 04.10.2008 at about 7:00 am, he along with his wife and grand son had gone to nearby village to see Durga Pooja and at that time, accused/respondent and Bimla Bai (hereinafter called as 'deceased') were present in the house. After some time, accused/respondent took his mother to house and he (PW-2) and other villagers followed them and saw the dead body of his daughter-in-law/deceased lying in the courtyard of his house in burnt condition and a kerosene oil can with burn marks was also found there. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination where PW-15 Dr. T.N. Mandleshwar conducted the postmortem examination and gave his report vide Ex.P-12. According to PW-15 Dr. T.N. Mandleshwar, cause of death of deceased was suffocation and shock due to extensive burn. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and it was found that accused/respondent used to harass and beat the deceased by saying that she has not given him a motorcycle in dowry, about which, deceased had informed to her parents and relatives. Thus, the crime against the accused/respondent was registered on the ground that he subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for the demand of motorcycle in dowry and being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment made by the accused/respondent, deceased committed suicide by burning herself after pouring kerosene oil. After that, FIR (P-17) has been registered against the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. 3. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, 1961. Accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 3 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 17 documents connecting the respondent/accused to the crime in question. However, in his defence, respondent/accused has examined none and not exhibited any document. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of said charges leveled against him. . 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that the evidence available on record would clearly show that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment repeatedly for demand of motorcycle in dowry by the respondent and due to which, deceased committed suicide by burning herself after pouring kerosene oil. He would also submit that there is sufficient evidence on record which would show the complicity of the accused/respondent in the crime in question and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused person/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent would support the impugned judgment and submit that it is not proved by the prosecution that any demand of dowry was ever made by the respondent and even soon before her death and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, impugned judgment passed by the 4 learned trial Court is well merited and needs no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, 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 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 11. As regards the principles concerning the above-referred provisions, this Court wishes to refer to the decisions reported in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao 1 & Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2. 12. In K. Prema S. Rao (supra) it has been held as under:- “16. … 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 1(2003) 1 SCC 217 2(2007) 14 SCC 176 5 subjected to cruelty and harassment 'in connection with the demand for dowry'.” 13.In Devi Lal (supra), the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304-B as laid down in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab 3 and Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar 4 have been reiterated as under:- “20. The question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304-B of the Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are: (I) that the death of woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before death.” 14. Now, the question is whether one of the ingredients of the offence is established that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused/respondent in connection with demand of dowry? 15. PW-1 Sanat Kumar Chakradhari, cousin of the deceased, has stated that during Teeja pora, deceased had come to the house and from there, she went to village Silghat and stayed there for 5-6 days where she told him that accused/respondent used to beat her by saying that she did not bring a motorcycle in dowry. In cross-examination, he admitted that in their custom, they give and take dowry according to their wishes. He further admitted that, had accused/respondent demanded dowry before the marriage, then they would not have been able to get the deceased married with respondent because they are labourers. He also admitted that after getting information from the deceased, he did not lodge any report at Devkar Police Station. He also admitted that during Teeja pora, 3(2006) 1 SCC 463 4(2006) 10 SCC 115 6 deceased had come to the house and at that time, deceased informed him and his brothers Bansilal and Heeralal about the demand of dowry, even then, they did not lodge any report against any person. 16. PW-2 Feru, father of the accused/respondent, has stated that he informed about the incident at police station, pursuant to which, merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was recorded and other proceedings were conducted vide Exs.P-2 to P-5. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of marriage, he did not discuss with respect to demand of dowry in any manner with the deceased's family. He further admitted that at the time of incident, accused/respondent was not present in the village and had gone to another village Nagal. He also admitted that neither he nor accused/respondent demanded for motorcycle or harassed the deceased for it. He also admitted that on the date of incident, PW-9 Bansilal and people who came with him did not make any complaint in any manner. 17. PW-3 Sati Bai, mother of the deceased, has stated that deceased got married during Akti pooja. She has further stated that when she was in Agra, at that time, deceased informed her over mobile that accused/respondent used to commit marpeet with her by saying that she did not give him a motorcycle in dowry. In cross-examination, she admitted that her family members do labour work and before marriage, she had discussed with the accused's father for not giving her girl if they you would demand dowry, whereupon, they told her that they are not greedy for dowry and if they want they can get married through Vermala and despite that, at the time of marriage, they had given some items on their own wish. She further admitted that there is no tradition of demanding dowry in their community. She also admitted that she did not inform about demand of dowry made by accused/respondent to village 7 people nor lodge any report in police station, whereas PW-1 Sanat lodged report at police station, but PW-1 Sanant admitted that he did not lodge any report against the accused in police station. 18. PW-4 Binda Bai, sister of the deceased, has stated that deceased told her that accused/respondent used to force her to bring motorcycle. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that when deceased and his brother (PW-9) had come to home, they did not complain about the demand of motorcycle made by accused/respondent. She further admitted that she did not inform police that PW-9 Bansilal told her something. She also admitted that when deceased told her about the demand of motorcycle, at that time, no one was present over there. She also admitted that she does not know as to on what date and month, deceased informed her about the demand of motorcycle. She also admitted that deceased did not lodge any report till her death nor they (she & deceased) met each other. She also admitted that despite being close to each other, they did not lodge any report. It is also admitted by this witness that she did not tell anyone because whatever deceased told her she believed that no such thing would take place within 4-5 months. 19. PW-5 Kamleshwari Bai, another sister of deceased, admitted, in her cross-examination that before Teeja Pora, she did not talk with deceased nor deceased did complain her about the demand of motorcycle in dowry by accused/respondent. Likewise, PW-6 Parvati Bai, aunt of the deceased, also admitted, in her cross-examination, that at the time of marriage, accused/respondent and her parents did not demand for dowry. She further admitted that whatever deceased told her, she did not inform to anyone and only one time, she met the deceased. She also admitted 8 that whenever accused/respondent called the deceased over phone, she said that she would go happily. 20.PW-9 Bansilal Chakradhari, brother of the deceased, has stated that during Ashadha month, as per the tradition of his community, he along with his family members had gone to take the deceased and during that period, deceased went to her sister's house also and stayed there for one week. Thereafter, on the request of accused/respondent, they sent the deceased to her matrimonial home. He has further stated that, deceased remained in village Devkar for 5-6 days and when PW-7 Rampyari, aunt of the deceased (Mosi) asked the deceased, then deceased informed her that accused/respondent used to commit marpeet with her and demand motorcycle, however, the said fact is not mentioned in her (PW-7) statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, he (PW-9) admitted that in the month of Ashadha, when deceased had come to the house, at that time, she did not complain to her family members about the demand of motorcycle made by accused/respondent and after Teeja pora, deceased went to her matrimonial home with hale and hearty. 21. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of above witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other with respect to demand of motorcycle in dowry and harassment made by accused/respondent. Further, the evidence of above witnesses would show that although they have stated that deceased told them that accused/respondent used to commit marpeet with her and demanded motorcycle, but neither deceased nor any of the above witnesses have lodged any report in any police station in this regard prior to her death. Moreover, PW-3 mother of 9 the deceased, also admitted that at the time of marriage, accused/respondent and his father told her that they are not greedy for dowry and ready to marry through Vermala. This apart, there is nothing on record to show that accused/respondent, in any way, demanded for motorcycle in dowry and harassed the deceased or instigated her to commit suicide. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent and clinching evidence which would show that accused/respondent harassed and assaulted the deceased in connection with demand of motorcycle in dowry soon before her death and as such, acquitted accused / respondent of the said charges leveled against him on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused person / respondent herein of the aforesaid charges, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 23. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh