1 2025:CGHC:9010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 751 of 2004 1 - Manmohan S/o Pardeshi Suryavanshi Aged About 25 Years 2 - Munna S/o Pardeshi Suryavanshi Aged About 32 Years 3 - Guman S/o Pardeshi Suryavanshi Aged About 27 Years 4 - Deleted (Bishahin) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 17-01-2025. 5 - Gauri Bai W/o Munna Suryavanshi Aged About 25 Years All R/o Village Sukharikala O. P. Urga, P.S. Kotwali Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kotwali Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Mr. Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 20/02/2025 1. This Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) has been filed challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 05.08.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.466/2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba (CG) (for short “trial Court”). By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and for 2 years RI under Section 498 (A) IPC with fine of Rs.500/- on each count and in default 3 2 months Additional RI on each count. Total six accused persons were tried and out of them five accused persons were convicted and they have filed the instant appeal. Accused Pardeshi has been acquitted by trial Court. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.4 Bishahin has passed away. Therefore, her appeal stood abated. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Lalita was married with appellant No.1 Manmohan in the year 2001. The other appellants were the brother-in-law (appellants No. 2 & 3), mother-in-law (appellant No.4- deceased) and sister-in-law (appellant No.5) of the deceased Lalita. After 2-3 months of the marriage, the appellants were harassing the deceased on account of demand of dowry and on 17.06.2003 she died by jumping in front of running train within seven years of marriage and her dead body was found on railway track. Upon which merg intimation 16/03 was registered and enquiry was set on motion. Panchnama Notice Ex. P-1 was given to legal heirs, vide Ex.P-2 spot map was prepared. Patwari prepared the Map Ex. P-3. Vide Ex. P- 6 notice was given to Panch for dead body Panchnama, dead body of the deceased was recovered as per Ex. P-7, again the map of the incident site was made as per Ex. P-8. Application for post mortem of the body was given as per Ex. P-9. Post Mortem report was received as per Ex. P-10. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to appellant/ accused Manmohan. Statements of the witnesses were recorded upon which prima-facie a case under Section 306/34 of IPC was found against the accused persons and Crime No.0/03 dated 01.07.2003 was registered at Saragaon Police Station and later on it was transferred to Police Station Kotwali, Korba. Upon which First Information Report No. 564/03 under Section 306/34 IPC was registered and the investigation was set on motion. The appellants were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 306, 304-B R/w 34 3 IPC was filed before the Committal Court who in turn committed the case to the sessions Court Bilaspur which was transferred to the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the charges as stated above. The accused/appellants however, denied the charge framed against them and claimed for trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenge before this Court by the appellants. 5. Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the prosecution was unable to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of/ in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the statement of witnesses particularly father of the deceased (PW-1) envisages that there was no demand of dowry made by the appellants. He submits that the deceased, appellant No.1 and father of the deceased (PW-1) lived together in New Delhi for a considerable period of time and during that period, the deceased never made any complaint with regard to any harassment or demand of dowry. He submits that from the statement of PW-1, it is apparent that the earnings made by the deceased and appellant No.1 at New Delhi was handed over to the father of the deceased who came to the village and thereafter refused to pay the same. This might have caused mental trauma to the 4 deceased. He submits that in order to establish the guilt under Section 304-B, the prosecution was required to establish that the allegation of harassment on account or in connection with demand of dowry has to be in close proximity leading to the unnatural death of the deceased. In the case in hand, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the same, therefore, the presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act (for short “Evidence Act”) will not come into play even otherwise the appellants have been able to rebut the presumption. He submits that learned trial Court placed reliance upon the statement of Ramlal grandfather of the deceased (PW-5) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) brother of the deceased to sustain conviction and gave a finding of conviction which is absolutely perverse and contrary to the record. The allegations which were leveled against the appellants by the grandfather (PW- 5) was with regard to the period just after the marriage of the deceased, therefore, that cannot found basis to hold that soon before the death of deceased, she was subjected to harassment on account of demand or in connection with dowry, PW-3 does not speak with regard to any demand made by the appellants, therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot sustain on the scrutiny of this Court and liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. In order to strengthen his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (3) CCSC 1266 (SC) and in the case of Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (2) CCSC 622 (SC). 6. Per contra, Mr. Kashyap, supports the judgment impugned and submits that soon before the death would not ipso facto mean immediately before the death. The provision has to be read in the context with the proximity of the act done by the appellants which led to the commission of suicide or unnatural death of the deceased. He submits that from the evidence of Rajesh Kumar (PW-3), 5 Ramlal (PW-5) and Puniram (PW-8) it is quite established by the prosecution that soon before the death of the deceased harassment on account of demand of dowry is made out. The prosecution by leading the cogent evidence able to establish the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC, and therefore the presumption under Evidence Act will definitely come into play, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is unfortunate that the unnatural death of deceased was caused within 7 years of the marriage. PW-1 is the father of the deceased who deposed in his statement that the appellants were keeping her happily for only 3 months of marriage and thereafter they used to harass her on account of dowry. It is also alleged the appellants used to call ‘Tohni’ to the deceased. It is further stated that when his daughter Lalita/ deceased came to his house on the occasion of his sister’s marriage she narrated about these facts to him. He further states that after one month his daughter and his son-in-law came his house and remained there for about 3 months and thereafter left for Delhi for earning livelihood. He also deposed with regard to proceedings carried out after the dead body of the deceased was found on railway track. In Para 9 of his statement, he deposed that her daughter was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry as she has not brought TV, Motorcycle, Fridge etc. This deposition has come in his examination-in-chief which indicates that after 3 months of the marriage allegations were leveled against the appellants that his daughter was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry. In the cross-examination he stated that when the marriage was fixed amongst the deceased and appellant No.1 no demand of dowry was made. He further admitted that in the month of ‘Ashad’ of the year in which the marriage took place, his daughter and appellant No.1 6 (son-in-law) came and lived in his house. He further deposed that during that period his daughter informed him that mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in- law & sister-in-law were troubling her on account of dowry at that time, he did not lodge any report. He gave an explanation that if he makes a report, her daughter may be subjected to harassment. From his statement it also reflects that after appellant No.1 and deceased had gone to Delhi for livelihood, he also went there and remained together there for 4 months. A suggestion was given to this witness that the amount which the appellant No.1 and deceased used to earn was kept by him which was denied by him. He further deposed that he often used to visit the house of deceased at that time the appellants never demanded any dowry and during the period all of them were residing in Delhi no demand of dowry was made. However, later he states that his daughter said that he is not returning the money and the said money will not be fruitful for him. 9. From his statement it is also apparent that the deceased and appellant No.1 had come to the house of PW-1 to attend the marriage of the sister and thereafter they went to the home and after 5-7 days, he received the information of missing of the deceased. He himself states that information was received after 10-15 days. Statement of this witness discloses that PW-1 was unable to tell the date on which the demand of dowry was made. He further admits that he never made any report on account of demand of dowry neither any panchayat meeting was convened nor intimated to anybody else or village Bakhoda. However, he subsequently states that it was informed to village Bakhoda. He admits that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2001 and the deceased and appellant No.1 went to Delhi in the year 2003. He further admits that no report was lodged against Manmohan in any Police Station. In sum and substance this witness suggested in the examination-in-chief that the deceased 7 was subjected to harassment on account of dowry and he never made any report in this regard during the time of marriage no demand of dowry was made. All of them remained in Delhi for about 3 months and prior to that the appellant No.1 and the deceased lived with him for 3 months in his house. During this period no specific allegations were leveled by the deceased against the appellants. 10.PW-2 is the mother who also deposed in the same line. She states that appellants used to suspect on the deceased to be Tohni (witch) and she was being treated in Luthra Sharif. She specifically states that the deceased informed that TV was being demanded by the appellant No.1. she also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased and appellant No.1 lived for 2-3 months in their home before living to Delhi. At the time of marriage of her sister-in-law they came back. She also admits the fact that when the deceased and appellant No.1 were residing in their house happily, a day before she left, the deceased shown sadness to her. Perusal of this witness also indicates that some demand of dowry was made but specification of that is missing in her statement which emerges from her evidence, the daughter was in trouble. 11. Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) speaks about the fact that the deceased was assaulted by appellant No.1 as she was inclined to go with him. He does not appear to have spoken about demand of dowry. PW-4 uncle of the deceased also states the same fact that after 3-4 months of marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of bringing less amount of dowry. He deposed with regard to proceeding carried out when the dead body of the deceased was found. He also accompanied along with his wife with the deceased and appellant No.1 to Delhi and also admitted that during this period no demand of 8 dowry was made. He further speaks with regard to taking the deceased to Luthra Sharif for treatment. PW-5 upon which the reliance was placed said to have stated about some incident after 15 days of marriage where the deceased informed him that she was being assaulted by in-laws and when confronted, the appellants were present and stated that sufficient amount of dowry was not given. He also deposed with regard to certain harassment meted out to the deceased but he did not lodge any report. 12.Puniram (PW-8) is the Upsarpanch and on perusal of his statement it does not reflect that as to whether any demand of dowry was made in his presence. He simply stated that he heard the noise of quarrel coming out from the house of the deceased and the appellants. From assessment of evidence which have been relied upon by the learned trial Court it is evident that there were allegations with regard to demand of dowry which was not in fact virtually seen by the witnesses barring PW-5. The statement of PW-5 is with regard to some incident that took place after 15 days of the marriage. Rest of the witnesses have stated that they were told by the deceased that she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Statement of PW-1 (father of the deceased) and PW-2 (mother of the deceased) would indicate that the appellant No.1 and deceased lived with them in their house for about 3 months and as such during that period, no demand of dowry was made or any untoward incident has occurred or the deceased was subjected to any harassment. The evidence further reflects that thereafter the deceased and appellant No.1 went to Delhi for earning their livelihood and remained there for about 3 months during the course of that period, PW-1 and PW-4 were also accompanying them. During this period it has not been brought on record by the prosecution that demand of any dowry was made by the appellant No.1 or the deceased was subjected to any harassment. The only fact which emerges 9 from the evidence is that the deceased told PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 about the harassment made, in fact from the cumulative assessment of the evidence, as it is evident that for almost 4-5 months, PW-1 and PW-4 were accompanying at New Delhi, no such untoward incident has occurred. 13.The Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra) in Para 16 held as under:- “16. What the High Court failed to notice in arriving at the said findings is that no evidence was brought on record to show that the cruelty or harassment was meted out to her for bringing insufficient dowry, in absence whereof the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been proved. The legal fiction sought to be created must be raised only on fulfillment of the conditions precedent therefor. All the requisite ingredients of the offence must be brought home before the presumptive evidence is put to use by the court for holding the accused guilty of an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.” 14. Likewise in the case of Raman Kumar (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 16 held as under:- “16. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 10 "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. 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.” 15. In the case of Charan Singh Alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 454, allegations with regard to demand of motorcycle and some land was made against the husband by which deceased therein was subjected to harassment, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “21. ….It is only certain oral averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which is also much prior to the incident. The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill the pre-requisites to invoke presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.” 16.The fact also remained that if the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and she was harassed since long, in natural course, a report would have been lodged by the deceased or her parents but they did not lodge any report regarding cruelty or demand of dowry. Even if no report was lodged they may have convened the social meeting. On the contrary, it appears that the deceased was living with the appellants but she has not made any complaint against them. The defence which was put forth by the appellants that the amount which was earned by the appellant No.1 and deceased which was used to kept by the father of the deceased and when she demanded back the money the same was not being returned which caused mental trauma to the deceased. However, this suggestion was denied by PW-1, but it appears from the evidence that the money which was earned by the deceased and appellant 11 No.1 was used to kept with her father and at the time of demand made by the deceased he refused to return the same for that she was in mental trauma. The prosecution therefore, in order to sustain the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC failed to prove the demand of dowry or any harassment to the deceased, it also appears that neither any report has been lodged by the deceased nor by her parents which shows that there is no quarrel between the deceased and appellants regarding demand of dowry or she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment and only common allegations were leveled without any substance. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, also considering that there is no specific allegation against the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 17.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, judgment impugned is set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted of charge leveled against them. Appellants are reported to be on bail, their bail bond will remain in force for six months in view of section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 18.Record with copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.03.04 17:28:57 +0530