1 2025:CGHC:30076-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 94 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Civil District- Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramkripal Yadav, S/o Ramcharitra Yadav, Aged About 25 Years 2 - Ramcharitra Yadav, S/o Panmeshwar Yadav, Aged About 55 Years 3 - Smt. Dhanpatiya, W/o Ramcharitra Yadav, Aged About 50 Years 4 - Suresh Kumar Yadav, S/o Kalicharan Yadav Aged About 28 Years 5 - Sanjay Kumar Yadav, S/o Gyani Yadav, Aged About 38 Years All are R/o Village Karji, Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Vikky, W/o Shivdhari Yadav, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Korgha, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.04 10:42:47 +0530 2 D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 03/07/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20/07/2017 passed by the First Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. R-29/2014, whereby, the Respondent No.1- Ramkripal Yadav, Respondent No.2- Ramcharitra Yadav, Respondent No.3- Smt. Dhanpatiya and Respondent No.6- Smt. Vikky have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and in alternatively under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, while Respondent No.4- Suresh Kumar Yadav and Respondent No.5- Sanjay Kumar Yadav under Sections 201 and 177 of IPC . 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that, the marriage of the deceased, namely, Sunita Yadav was solemnized with respondent No.1- Ramkripal Yadav on 24/05/2012 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals and, after her marriage, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws, on account of demand of golden chain, as well as, cash amount of Rs.50,000/-, owing to which, she committed suicide while consuming poison on 14/09/2013. On account of her death, the 3 cousin of her husband, namely, Suresh Kumar Yadav, respondent No.4, herein, lodged a merg intimation before the Police Station- Rajpur of District- Balrampur informing that, on the said fateful day at about 01:00 P.M., she went to take bath to a nearby newly constructed well, where she fell into the well and died. After receiving the said information, the enquiry was being conducted and during its enquiry, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by deceased’s mother, namely, Bhagwantiya and, an FIR (Ex.P/21) was, thereupon, registered against the respondents on 05/01/2014 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.04/2014 and after completing the usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/34 and 201 of IPC and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charges were framed against the Respondent No.1- Ramkripal Yadav, Respondent No.2- Ramcharitra Yadav, Respondent No.3- Smt. Dhanpatiya and Respondent No.6- Smt. Vikky (sister-in-law -Nanand) under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and, alternatively under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, while the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 177 of IPC were registered against the rest of the respondents, i.e. Respondent No.4- Suresh Kumar Yadav and Respondent No.5- Sanjay Kumar Yadav (who is stranger to the 4 family) and, the charges so framed were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, while one witness, namely, Kamla Kujur (DW-1) was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that soon before her (Sunita Yadav) death, she was maltreated and harassed by her in-laws on account of demand of golden chain, as well as, cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents were not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statements of the parents of the deceased, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such, from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment of acquittal 5 as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that, the Respondent No.1-Ramkripal Yadav, Respondent No.2- Ramcharitra Yadav, Respondent No.3- Smt. Dhanpatiya and Respondent No.6- Smt. Vikky (sister-in-law -Nanand) have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and alternatively under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, while Respondent No.4- Suresh Kumar Yadav and Respondent No.5- Sanjay Kumar Yadav, who is stranger to the family, have been charge-sheeted under Sections 201 and 177 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 14/09/2013, when the deceased-Sunita Yadav has died while consuming poison. According to the prosecution, the deceased- Sunita Yadav was maltreated and harassed immediately after the solemnization of her marriage by her in-laws, on account of demand of dowry of golden chain, as well as, cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which compelled her to take such an extreme step. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the mother of the deceased, namely, Bhagwantiya was examined as PW-1 and according to her testimony, it appears that, she was informed by her deceased-daughter that, whenever, she used to come home, she always used to inform her that she was tortured because of 6 coming with inadequate dowry and stated further that, if the marriage of her son-in-law would have been solemnized to some other place, he would have fetched golden chain and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-. She deposed further after declaring hostile, that her daughter informed her that she was harassed and maltreated because of demand of golden chain and amount of Rs.50,000/- but, when a question was put to her at Para-10 regarding the meaning of torture which was being given to her daughter, it was, then replied that since she has come with inadequate dowry, therefore, she was tortured and if the marriage of her son-in-law would have solemnized to some other place, then he would have fetched golden chain, as well, as Rs.50,000/- and, these are the reasons why she was being harassed by her in-laws. 10. Father of the deceased, namely, Ram Swaroop was examined as PW-4 and it appears from his testimony that his deceased-daughter used to inform him that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law on account of demand of golden chain as well as Rs.50,000/-. He, however, unable to state that on which date, the alleged demand was made to his daughter or was harassed because of the alleged demand. Brother of the deceased, namely, Gopal (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that he was informed by his sister that she was harassed and maltreated by her in-laws on account of the alleged demand of golden chain and Rs.50,000/-. Likewise, is 7 the statement of her maternal uncle (Mausa), namely, Harinath (PW-2), but the alleged fact was, however, not disclosed by him to anyone else and it was narrated by him for the first time before the Court. Raja Ram (PW-3), the maternal uncle (Mama) of the deceased has also stated that she was harassed by her in-laws, on account of the alleged demand, but was unable to state that in which month, the alleged fact was disclosed to him. 11. What is, therefore, reflected from the evidence of the aforesaid relatives of the deceased that the demand of Rs.50,000/- and golden chain was being demanded by her in- laws, but, they have, however, failed to state that soon before her death, the alleged demand was made to her and because of that she was being harassed and maltreated. That apart, her marriage was solemnized on 24/05/2012, but, during her life time, her parents have never lodged the report that she was being harassed and maltreated by them as such and, instead the alleged written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged only on 05/01/2014 and that too, after passing of a considerable period of more than 03 months from the occurrence of the alleged incident. It, thus, appears that the deceased was not harassed and tortured because of the alleged demand, soon before her death. 12. In view of such circumstances, the trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the 8 commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant