1 2025:CGHC:1954-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 115 of 2012 State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Police Station Balco Nagar, Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Pradeep Kumar Chouhan, S/o Chandram Chouhan, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Nehru Nagar, Balco Nagar, P.S. Balco Nagar, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 13/01/2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 02/12/2010 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba in Sessions Trial PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.14 12:59:02 +0530 2 No.95/2010, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 01/05/2010, Suman Kerketta (since deceased) lodged the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-12) before the Police Station- Balco Nagar of District- Korba, alleging therein, that on the fateful day, when she was alone at home, the respondent-Pradeep Kumar Chouhan entered into her house between 01:00 to 02:00 P.M. and locked the door from inside and insisted to marry with him and when she refused, he took the kerosene oil from her kitchen and ablazed her and fled away. Based upon the said information, the FIR (Ex.P/13) was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.117/2010 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC against the respondent and later on, after the death of the deceased, it was converted into 302 IPC. 3. That, on account of the said incident, she was admitted into the hospital and during the course of her treatment, she died on 06/05/2010. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P/2 and was sent for its autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. V.S. Rathore (PW-13), who vide his report (Ex.P/14) opined the mode of death as Cardio respiratory arrest as a result of extensive antemortem burn & its complications and, after considering the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the final report was submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, who in turn, committed the matter before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, where the charge has been framed against the 3 respondent under Section 302 IPC, which was denied by him, and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and has exhibited 15 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the said respondent is not the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, being aggrieved, the State/appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to law, in as much as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the dying declaration (Ex.P/8) of the deceased, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that, on account of the incident, occurred on 01/05/2010 between 01:00 to 02:00 P.M., initially, the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the respondent based upon the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/12) lodged by the deceased, wherein, it was alleged that the respondent on the fateful 4 day has entered into her house and wanted to marry her and when she refused, he took the kerosene oil from her kitchen and ablazed her, owing to which, she was admitted into the hospital, where she died during the course of her treatment on 06/05/2010 and, he was, therefore, charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 10. It appears from perusal of the record that, the dying declaration of the prosecutrix was recorded vide Ex.P/8, after obtaining the opinion from Dr. M. Kujur vide Ex. P/7, who found her able to make the statement. According to the dying declaration (Ex.P/8), which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, namely, S.K. Meriya (PW-9), it appears that, the respondent had entered into her house and insisted for marriage and when she refused, he ablazed her with the aid of kerosene oil. Although, it was stated as such, but, when the said Executive Magistrate was examined before the Court, it was, however, stated by him that her lips were completely burnt and was in the state of unconsciousness and was stating something. He deposed further that her version was not clear and has recorded her dying declaration (Ex.P/8) what he understood from her version, though it was not clear to him. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it as the same was not duly established by the said witness. 11. It is to be seen further that when she was examined by Doctor M. Kujur (PW-8) on 01.05.2010, it was stated by her that when she (deceased) was brought to her for treatment, she was burnt to the extent of 99% and, she talked with her, but during her discussion, it appears that it was not disclosed by her (deceased- Suman Kerketta) that, the respondent had come to her house and burnt her with the aid of 5 kerosene oil. It reveals further from her testimony that she (deceased) was brought by her aunt and some neighbour, who have admitted her for treatment into the hospital on 01/05/2010. It however, appears from her aunt Basanti’s statement, examined as PW-4 that, when she reached her house along with her sister- Pati Bai and other neighbours, her (deceased) house was found to be locked from inside, and therefore, they broke opened the door, and thereafter took her to the hospital for treatment. This witness has, however, not stated that when she reached her house, the respondent was there or was running away from the spot, as was stated by the deceased in her said dying declaration (Ex.P/8) and the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/12), so as to hold that the respondent was there in her house at that particular time. That apart, the sister of said Basanti Bai, who was also went to the deceased’s house, was, however, not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the alleged dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate as per the version made by the deceased, so as to take note of the same for attributing the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 12. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Prashant