1 2025:CGHC:34436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2022 Vishal Kumar Sonjhari S/o Late Sahdev Prasad, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kudri, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Shri SK Puriya, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 21.07.2025 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Case No.49/2019 convicting the Appellant under Section 304B IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years. Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.07.23 10:53:17 +0530 2 2. A synoptical resumption of the factual position in the case is that marriage of deceased Sapna was solemnized with the Appellant on 20.04.2018 as per the social rituals and she died on 27.07.2018 at her matrimonial house at village Kudri by consuming poison. Step mother of the deceased-Ganesh Bai Sidar (PW-1) has lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-1) before S.P, Janjgir against the present Appellant/husband of the deceased, uncle-in-law (chacha sasur) namely Gona Sonjhari, brother-in-law (devar) namely Rahul Sonjhari, Sister-in-law (nanand) namely Gomti Sonjhari and her husband (nandoi) namely Laxman Sonjhari stating that after the marriage, the said persons were harassing the deceased for demand of dowry and also threatened to kill her. She has further stated that a day prior to the date of incident i.e. 26.07.2018, the deceased made her a call informing that the Appellant has brutally beaten her up due to which, she sustained injuries on the head and was also threatened to be killed. She has further stated therein that uncle-in-law-Gona Sonjhari and brother- in-law–Rahul Sonjhari have advised the Appellant to sever and lob away the deceased. In the said complaint, suspicion was cast on the said persons stating that they have administered poison to the deceased. After enquiry, FIR (Ex.P-21) has been registered on 10.05.2019 at PS Janjgir. During investigation, marriage invitation card (Ex.P-3) was seized, crime details form (Ex.P-5) was 3 prepared and death inquest (Ex.P-9) was carried out. Deceased was subjected to postmortem (Ex.P-23) wherein, the doctor has opined that death occurred due to cardio respiratory arrest by poisoning, viscera was preserved. FSL report (Ex.P-13) shows that Paraquat (Weedicide) was found in the pieces of heart, lungs, liver, kidney, spleen and stomach. Patwari prepared spot map (Ex.P-19). 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who has committed the case, which in turn, has been received for trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-24). Statement of the accused/Appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which, he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and in his defence, no witness was examined. 4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court, vide its impugned judgment, has acquitted Gomti Sonjhari and Laxman Sonjhari but convicted the Appellant herein as mentioned above. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no iota of evidence that the deceased, soon before her death, was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. He further submits that though the incident took place on 27.07.2018, but the written complaint has been lodged belatedly on 11.03.2019 i.e. after more 4 than 7 months and further, FIR (Ex.P-21) has been registered on 10.05.2019 i.e. after about 9 months. He further submits that though the written complaint has been lodged against five persons but the FIR has been registered only against 3 persons i.e. the present Appellant, his sister Gomti Sonjhari and her husband- Laxman Sonjhari. He further submits that there are omnibus allegations for demand of money against the Appellant and other accused persons and in the similar set of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted those two accused but only on assumptions, has convicted the Appellant/husband based on the evidence of Nirmala @ Narmada (PW-3), the maternal aunt and Hulsi Bai (PW-4), sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased albeit there are serious contradictions and omissions in their statements. He further submits that brother of the deceased namely Amit (PW-2) and Hulsi Bai (PW-4), sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased have categorically admitted the fact that as the father of the deceased used to consume alcohol and quarrel, therefore, she used to remain disturbed and as such, she was not having any predicament with her in-laws and the trial Court has also recorded the said finding in para-29 of the judgment impugned. He lastly submits that despite the said infirmities, the trial Court has wrongly recorded the finding of conviction of the Appellant, which is not sustainable and prays to allow the Appeal. 5 6. On the flip side, learned State Counsel has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court is justified in convicting the Appellant and the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment impugned is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record including the judgment impugned carefully. 8. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied-  The death of a women should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.  Such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage.  Soon before the death of deceased, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her Husband or any relative of her Husband.  Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 9. Thus, if the aforesaid ingredients are established by the prosecution by leading appropriate reliable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. 6 10. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death which reads as under:- "113B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." The aforesaid provision shows that if the women has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498-A IPC, the court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:- 2. Definition of "dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 11. To attract the provisions of Section 304B, 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 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 12. As regards the principles concerning the above-referred 7 provisions, it would be profitable to notice the decisions reported in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao reported in (2003) 1 SCC 217, Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N reported in (2004) 9 SCC 157 and Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2007) 14 SCC 176. 13. 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 subjected to cruelty and harassment 'in connection with the demand for dowry'.” 14. Keeping the afore-stated principles of law in mind, this Court shall now proceed to consider the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case as to whether the ingredients for offence under Section 304B IPC are made out or not? 15. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased Sapna was solemnized with the Appellant on 20.04.2018 and on the date of incident i.e. on 27.07.2018, she died by consuming poison. The said fact has also not been disputed by the Appellant which is also duly proved by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-15), who, in the postmortem report (Ex.P-23), has opined that the death occurred due to cardio respiratory arrest caused by consumption of poison and during the said examination, viscera has also been preserved. The said fact has been confirmed by the FSL report (Ex.P-13) that the deceased has consumed poison namely Paraquat (Weedicide) and as such, two essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC i.e. (i) the death of a 8 woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and (ii) the death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage are clearly established in the instant case, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard is affirmed. 16. Now, the spinal issue is as to whether the remaining ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 304B IPC i.e. (iii) soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Appellant and (iv) the said cruelty and harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry, are established in the instant case or not. 17. Learned trial Court, in para-18 of the judgment impugned, has categorically recorded the finding that material witnesses i.e. step mother of the deceased Ganeshi Bai Sidar (PW-1) who has lodged written complaint (Ex.P-1), her brother Amit (PW-2) and maternal uncle Sopan Das (PW-5) have not stated anything adversely against the Appellant. They have also categorically admitted in their cross-examination that at the time of marriage or even thereafter, there was no such demand of dowry and have further specifically mentioned that the deceased has not complained against any member of her in-laws’ family and further, the deceased was disturbed as her father used to consume alcohol heavily for which, she used to refrain him. The trial Court has only, 9 on the statements of Nirmala @ Narmada (PW-3) maternal aunt and Hulsi Bai, sister-in-law of the deceased (PW-4), convicted the Appellant and assigned the reason that other witnesses i.e. Ganeshi Bai Sidar (PW-1), who is the step-mother and Amit, (PW-2), who is the cousin of the deceased, have stated in favour of the accused persons. Further, though the incident took place on 27.07.2018, but no complaint has been made immediately thereafter. Even during the mean time, there was no such complaint about any demand of dowry and after about 9 months of the aforesaid incident, a written complaint has been lodged by the step-mother Ganeshi Bai Sidar (PW-1) against five persons. But after the enquriy, FIR (Ex.P-21) has been registered only against three persons. 18. Having scrutinized the evidence, it appears that there is no specific date, time and place with regard to demand particularly in connection with the marriage i.e. dowry. In the written complaint (Ex.P1), it has been stated that husband of the deceased i.e. the Appellant herein has sold out the jewelry of the deceased for the sake and alcohol and gambling. 19. It is well settled that every type of demand of money cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. Hulsi Bai (PW-4), in her cross- examination, admits the fact that in front of her, the deceased has never made any complaint that the Appellant herein has made any 10 demand for money or beaten her up. Nirmala @ Narmada (PW-3) albeit stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased has made a call but at para-10 of her cross-examination, the said fact was found in the omission of the police statement recorded vide Ex.D-1. 20. From the foregoing, it is vivid that there was a delayed FIR and no sufficient explanation has been offered for the same. Further, in the evidence, there is no such clear evidence that any demand has ever been made in connection with the dowry, therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the necessary ingredients under Section 304-B IPC and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable and accordingly, the judgment impugned is set aside. 21. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The Appellant is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya