1 Reserved on 28.03.2025 Pronounced on 26.06.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 589 of 2005 Digambar Kashyap, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Banke Bihari Kashyap, resident of village Madhi, O. P. Silyari, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Somnath Verma and Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Judgment 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment impugned dated 14.07.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG) in Session Trial No.374/2004 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years & 6 months with fine of Rs.2000/- plus default stipulation. 2. Facts leading to the disposal of this appeal in brief are that the deceased Maya Bai was the daughter of Rahibai, the marriage of the deceased with accused was solemnized about 9 years before the date of incident. After the marriage, the appellant started assaulting the deceased and used to ill treat her. On the date of incident i.e. 31.12.2003 there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant on account of going to Tilda. The appellant used to harass her on account of 2 recording the land in his name. On the date of incident, the accused assaulted the deceased as a result of which she set herself on fire. The deceased was admitted in MMI Hospital in burnt condition where her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate- Ku. Silly Thomas (PW-9) on 03.01.2004. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 03.01.2004 in MMI Hospital. When the deceased was admitted in the hospital, information Ex.P-1 about the same was given to Police Station Tikrapara. In respect of her death, Merg No.0/2004 was registered and after the inquest, Merg No.14/04 and FIR No.36/2004 were lodged in Police Station Dharsiwa. 3. Punchnama of dead body being Ex.P-2 was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem. Dr. Shivnarayan Manzi has examined the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex. P-5. The incident place was inspected and spot map was prepared and pieces of glass bangles, pieces of sari and a kerosene oil jar were seized from the incident vide seizure memo Ex. P-7 and a register relating to social matter was seized vide Ex. P-8. During investigation statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in which case under Crime No.202/2004 was registered thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court which made over the case to learned trial Court for trial. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC, however, denied the charge framed against him and claimed for trial. 4. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as many 11 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court acquitted the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC, however convicted under Section 498-A IPC and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the appellant. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was acquitted of charge under Section 306 of IPC meaning thereby he has not committed any cruelty. Apart from this, he submits that the deceased committed suicide on account of some small and domestic dispute between the husband and wife, she became perturbed and committed the suicide which is also evident from her dying declaration Ex. P-6. Reading the definition clause of 498-A IPC, he submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant has committed any physical assault upon the deceased and read over the submission of Dr. Shivnarayan Manzi (PW-8) to suggest that he did not find any injury on the person of the deceased while conducting the postmortem. He submits that the marriage was solemnized about 9-10 years ago, the incident has occurred on 31.12.2003, she was admitted in hospital, her dying declaration was recorded on 03.01.2004 and she died on the same day and he submits that more than 9-10 years of marriage between the deceased and accused/appellant, has already been passed and after death of deceased, naturally her parents would speak against the appellant. For all these years, there is nothing on record that any complaint was made by the deceased or her parents against the appellant with regard to cruelty. 7. Per contra, State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that the finding recorded by trial Court is just and proper and no interference is warranted in this appeal and liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in depth. 9. Rahi Bai (PW-1)- mother of the deceased has deposed in her statement that it has been almost one year passed since her daughter (deceased) passed away. The accused/appellant’s brother called and informed that her daughter had suffered burn injuries and was admitted to MMI Hospital. She, her daughter Lata, Asha aur Usha went to MMI Hospital to see her. When she questioned the deceased, she told her that her husband/ appellant had beaten her and she could not bear it, so she poured kerosene and set herself on fire. Her daughter set herself fire on 31.12.2003 and she had admitted to hospital on 03.01.2004 where she died on the same day. 4 She further stated that in December, 2003 a Bhagwat Katha was organized in the house of accused/appellant in which she also went and stayed in his house for 5 days. At that time, the accused used to quarrel with her daughter on trivial matters like there was no salt in the vegetables, but he did not beat her and when she came back after staying for 5 days, the deceased had died of burn injuries. In cross- examination she has admitted that after one month of marriage, the deceased came from her matrimonial house and she complained about assault against her husband and then she lived happily in her matrimonial house for 5 years and then lived with her for 2 years. She admitted that when deceased was at her parental home, a panchayat was held in the society and appellant had applied for deceased to be taken back to his house. It is also admitted that she and her daughter/ deceased had told the society that the appellant is of suspicious nature and because of this he beats her. She admitted that her daughter remained in her matrimonial house for 3 years and she continuously complaining about beating her from the beginning till the end, but she did not report it to the Police because she had reported to the society and this report was about beating. She has admitted that her daughter was ill since childhood and she was treated in Bombay and had a heart operation there. She denied that her daughter was troubled after operation and she became irritable. After the incident she was told that when the deceased was burning, the appellant took her to the boring and tried to extinguish the fire and the appellant also got burnt in it and he had admitted the deceased in Hospital. 10. Mukta Nand Sharma (PW-3)- the neighbour of appellant has stated that the behaviour of the appellant with her wife/ deceased was good. The deceased died about a year ago due to burning and she had set the fire herself. He does not know the reason why the deceased died by setting herself on fire. In cross-examination he has stated that his house distance is 50 feet from that of accused and he never saw the appellant beating the deceased. T. S. Nayak (PW-4) also deposed in the line of PW-3. Dev Prakash Pekra (PW-5)- the member of Manwa Kurmi Kashtatriya Samaj has deposed in his statement that the appellant had applied to 5 the society that his wife/ deceased was not coming from his maternal home. Then a meeting was held in which the deceased was asked to go to her matrimonial house with the appellant. She refused to go and told that the appellant assaulted her. On this, the society decided that the husband and wife would stay at their places for 6 months. Then, on the appellant’s application, a meeting was held in the village in which the deceased was counseled and sent with the appellant. Later, he came to know that on 31.12.2003 the deceased committed suicide setting herself on fire. 11. Ku. Silli Thomas (PW-9)- Nayab Tahsildar recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and has stated in her statement that on 03.01.2004 at 5:45 hours she recorded the dying declaration. Since the deceased's hand was burnt and she said that she had studied till 12th, she did not sign and put her thumb impression. In that regard dying declaration is Ex. P-6. She was orally asked by doctor and Police that the deceased was capable in recording dying declaration orally, therefore, she did not take certificate. 12. Now the question before this Court is that as to whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC can sustain the scrutiny of this Court. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence acquitted the appellant from Section 306 IPC however, convicted him under Section 498-A IPC. To sustain the conviction, the learned trial Court basically placed reliance on the statement of Rahi Bai (PW-1). This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. The learned trial Court relied her statement which is against the appellant. It is true that entire statement of hostile witness cannot be discarded simply because she/he has been declared hostile, but at the same time the statement requires to be examined with great care and caution. 13. From perusal of statement of Rahi Bai (PW-1), it appears that when the deceased complained about the beating for long time no Police report was lodged. Rather a social meeting was convened. It is also quite vivid that deceased lived with her husband for 5 years and lived in her marital home for 2 years. It is also apparent on record that deceased had heart condition for which she underwent a surgery. She 6 had three children two of them have died. This witness also admits that her daughter was beaten by the appellant before her death, but she did not make any complaint in police or society. It is also stated by her that she came to know that the appellant tried to save the deceased in which she was also burnt. Statement of Mukta (PW-3) reveals that his house is 50 feet away that of the appellant and he has never seen appellant beating the deceased. Another witness T. S. Nayak (PW-4) also does not support the case of prosecution. From perusal of the dying declaration (Ex. P-6) it appears that she on fit of anger set her on fire as she was beaten and scolded by appellant as a dog entered the kitchen and eaten the Chapati. It also reflects that appellant has tried to save her. 14. At this stage it is apt to quote Para 32 of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. The State of Haryana reported in 2024 Livelaw (SC) 343 as under:- “32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. 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 hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very 7 institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill- treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.” 15. On deep analysis of material on record that the marriage between the appellant and deceased was solemnized prior to 9-10 years from the incident. For 5 years they lived properly. For 2 years deceased was living with her mother. There was some domestic issues between them. They were blessed with 3 children. Deceased set her on fire in fit of anger. Taking into entire facts & circumstances and evidence on record it is quite vivid that allegations against the appellant cannot be termed as cruelty or harassment. Domestic dispute is always there in the marriage and one or two instances of beating as alleged can’t be said to be a continuous act of harassment resulting into conviction under Section 498-A of IPC. Particularly when the marriage between the appellant and deceased lasted for about 9-10 years. In light of the judgment in case of Achin Gupta (supra) the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, 8 the learned trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the accused/appellant is acquitted of charge leveled against him. Appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond will remain in force for six months in view of section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.06.26 15:34:25 +0530