1 2025:CGHC:7525 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Judgment reserved on 05.02.2025) (Judgment delivered on 12.02.2025) CRA No. 649 of 2007 1 – Premsingh, aged about 24 years, S/o Kanhaiya @ Hridaya Singh Verma, R/o Village Tendu-bhatha, P.S. Bemetara, Distt.-Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) C A V Judgment 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2007 in Special Case No. 268 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional SI for 2 months. 2 2. However, by the said impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted other 3 co-accused namely Kanhaiya @ Hriday Singh , Dhal Singh and Gangotri Bai of the offence u/s 304-B of IPC. Whereas the appellant/husband has been acquitted of section 304-B of IPC and convicted u/s 306 of IPC. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.08.2006 at about 3.45 p.m., village Kotwar Maniram of village Tendu Bhata filed a report to the effect that deceased Anita of his village died after setting fire to her house, which led to registration of Crime No. 48/2006 (Ex.P-1). Panchnama Proceeding (Ex.P-3) was conducted on 11.08.2006. The body was examined vide Ex.P-8. During investigation, the statements were recorded which go to show that deceased Anita was married to accused Prem Singh, resident of village Tendubhanta four years before the incident dated 11.08.2006 and her husband Prem Singh, mother-in-law Gangotri Bai, father-in-law Kanhaiya @ Hriday Singh and brother-in-law Dal Singh used to harass her for dowry and treated her with cruelty, due to which, deceased Anita Bai committed suicide on 11.08.2006 by pouring kerosene oil on herself and burning herself. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant Prem Singh under section 306 IPC. Hence this appeal. 5.1 Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of deceased Anita Bai due to burning was a 3 suicide as a result of any abetment by appellant husband. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant/husband under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable and the appellant be acquitted of the offence. 5.2 Learned Counsel for appellant referring to the evidence has submitted that none of the witnesses have stated anywhere that the appellant immediately before the occurrence of the alleged incident, has either harassed his wife or has instigated her to take drastic step to end her life. 5.3 He further submits that the learned trial Court in para 16 of the judgment recorded the finding that allegation of demand of dowry has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by producing admissible evidence but has erroneously convicted appellant under Section 306 of IPC only on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that there is no evidence available on record to prove that the appellant at any point of time had abetted deceased to commit suicide. 5.4 His further contention was that though the parents of deceased namely P.W.3 Lobhan (Father) and P.W.7 Phatkan Bai (mother) have similarly stated that the accused have harassed their daughter due to which she committed suicide, but the nature of allegations does not lead to show that due to cruelty meted out to her by the husband, she had taken the extreme step to commit suicide. He would submit that there is no mens-rea or intention on the part of accused to abet the victim to commit suicide. He placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court – (1) Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; (2) Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, (3) S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190; (4) Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 4 SCC 595; and (5) Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433. He therefore prays that the impugned judgment needs interference and the appellant be acquitted. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the death of wife took place in the house of appellant husband and thus looking to the manner of incident which took place and after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, which needs no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 8. It has come to the light in the statements of the father of deceased , Lobhan (P.W.3) and mother Phatkan Bai ( P.W.7) that deceased was beaten up by the appellant/husband and she used to go to her maternal home and tell the incident to her family members and she did not want to go to her in- laws house. Her father Lobhan (P.W.3) had taken her to her in-laws’ house a few days before the incident and thus, when there is evidence on record regarding repeated beating and harassment of the deceased wife by the appellant/husband, then on that basis, considering that the deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire in the house of the appellant/husband, the conclusion reached by the trial Court cannot be said to be contrary or contradictory to the facts and evidence available on record. In such a situation, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is not found to be improper and due to the difference in facts, the reliance placed on the decisions cited on his behalf does not give the benefit of doubt 5 to the appellant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of appellant. 9. Now, coming to the part of sentence, certainly due to cruelty, the deceased committed suicide but looking to the fact that in this case, the appellant had already undergone the jail sentence of 1 year and 27 days, as stated by learned counsel and further keeping in view the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 that is more than 18 years ago and presently the appellant is are aged about 42 years and suffered ordeal of the trial since 2006 in the interest of justice, it would not be appropriate to again send him to jail. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant and further to enhance the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 11. The appellant is on bail. He is not required to surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Rao Judge