1 / 10 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 248 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on 04.02.2025 Judgment Delivered on 17.02.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG) ... Appellant versus 1. Ajay Dubey, S/o Durga Prasad Dubey, aged about 31 years, by caste Brahman, Occupation unemployed, R/o Jawaharpara, Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) 2. Smt. Sunita Dubey, W/o Durga Prasad Dubey, aged about 53 years, by caste Brahman, occupation household lady, R/o Jawaharpara, Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) ... Respondents For Appellant/State :Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. For Respondents :None, though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the State arises out of the judgment dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.31/2003, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of deceased- Sunanda Dubey was solemnized with respondent No.1 Ajay Dubey on Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.02.17 15:21:51 +0530 2 / 10 2nd July, 2002 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and soon after the marriage, deceased joined the company of the respondent No.1. After the marriage, behaviour of respondents have changed towards Sunanda Dubey and they started torturing and harassing the deceased mentally and physically for bringing insufficient dowry and used to demand cow, calf, CD Player and cash in dowry. Being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment made by respondents, prior to incident, during the course of Navratri days, Sunanda Dubey went to her parental home situate at village Akalvara and gave information about the dowry raised by the respondents. Respondent No.1 went to her parental home and brought her to matrimonial home with an assurance that he would not harass her and just three days after that, Sunanda suddenly died in her in-laws’ house. The report of incident was lodged by P.W.6 Rajeshwar Prasad (father of the deceased) in Balod Police Station, based on which, Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P.8 and thereafter, based on written report, F.I.R. vide Ex.P.7 was launched against the respondents. Vide Ex.P.2, inquest was conducted and was sent for Post-mortem vide Ex.P.6. Post-mortem was conducted by R.K.Gore (P.W.11) on the dead body vide Ex.P.12, according to which, cause of death of deceased was cardio- respiratory arrest, which may occur by acute poison, but mode of death was not mentioned. During investigation, vide Ex.P-3, household material, gold and silver ornaments were seized, vide Ex.P.4, body parts of the deceased were seized, vide Ex.P.9, cloths of the deceased were seized and vide Ex.P.10, soil and some clothes were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination 3 / 10 and vide Ex.P.17, organic pesticide was found in the body of the deceased. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC. Accused/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 17 documents connecting the respondents/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents/accused persons have examined none, nor exhibited any document. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the said charges leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is completely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that the evidence available on record clearly shows that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry by the respondents and on account of which, deceased died under suspicious circumstances and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective, thus the impugned 4 / 10 judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and considered his submissions made herein-above and also perused the record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, 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 304-B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 10. As regards the principles concerning the above-referred provisions, this Court wishes to refer to the decisions reported in K. Prema S. Rao 5 / 10 v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao 1 , Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N. 2 , Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan 3 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana 4 . 11. 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'.” 12. In Kaliyaperumal (supra) relevant portion reads as under:- “5. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty 1(2003) 1 SCC 217 2(2004) 9 SCC 157 3(2007) 14 SCC 176 4(2010) 12 SCC 350 6 / 10 or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 13. In Devi Lal (supra), the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304-B as laid down in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab 5 and Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar 6 have been reiterated as under:- “20. The question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304-B of the Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are: (I) that the death of woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before death.” 14. In Ashok Kumar (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- “19. We have already referred to the provisions of Section 304- B of the Code and the most significant expression used in the section is 'soon before her death'. In our view, the expression 'soon before her death' cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. They must be understood in their plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to human behaviour and, therefore, cannot be given such a narrower meaning, which would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act. Of course, these are penal provisions and must receive strict construction. But, even the rule of strict construction requires that the provisions have to be read in conjunction with other relevant provisions and scheme of the Act. Further, the interpretation given should be one which would avoid absurd results on the one hand and would further the object and cause of the law so enacted on the other. 15. Now, the question is whether one of the ingredients of the offence is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to 5(2006) 1 SCC 463 6(2006) 10 SCC 115 7 / 10 cruelty or harassment by accused persons in connection with demand of dowry? 16. PW-7 Satyendra Kumar, brother of the deceased, has stated in his deposition that after 15 days of marriage, the respondents demanded cow, calf, C.D.Player and cash of Rs.15,000/- from his sister in the name dowry and besides this, they also demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- every month, but this piece of statement was not corroborated by P.W.6 father of deceased, who has stated in para 13 that the accused did not make any demand regarding money, dowry, etc. He further admitted that the accused persons never demanded for money or goods in any way. He has specifically stated that her daughter (deceased) used to come to his house only when somebody went to pick up her from in- laws’ house or otherwise she would stay in her in-laws’ house. He further admitted that he had not convened any meeting with respect to complaint made by her nor any report was lodged in the Police Station. He also admitted that when his son Satyendra Kumar (P.W.7) went to her matrimonial home on 12.10.2002, the respondents used to send her parental home with hale and hearty. He has further deposed in his statement that her daughter informed his over phone that the respondents demanded cow, calf and money in form of dowry, upon which, this witness informed her daughter that at present it is not possible and on 11.10.2002, deceased Sunanda again talked to him over phone and requested him to send her brother to her matrimonial home. He has further stated that when her daughter told him that the respondents subjected her to harassment for bringing cow, calf, 8 / 10 C.D.Player, Rs.15,000/- and this apart they also demanded to give them a sum of Rs.2,000/- every month, upon which, he called one Naresh Mishra, son-in-law of his co-brother-in-law, before whom, the deceased has stated about her plight. However, a bare perusal of F.I.R. Ex.P.7 and merg intimation Ex.P.8 would reveal that these facts were missing, for this, he admitted that the demand raised by the respondents was stated to be mentioned in the merg intimation but was unable to assign the reason about its non-mention in those documents. It is also admitted by him that while lodging F.I.R. (Ex.P.7), he did not mention the specific demand of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,000/- raised by the respondents. It is also admitted by him that he was unable to tell the reason as to why the fact as to deceased Sunanda should be sent through her brother to her parental home, has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. 17. A perusal of above statements of witnesses would reveal that the prosecution did not clearly prove the fact that soon before the death of deceased Sunanda, she was harassed or intimidated by the accused persons, due to which, the deceased was forced to take poison. P.W.10 Naresh Mishra, who is said to be the witness on behalf of the prosecution, told that as soon as he rushed to the Sunanda’s matrimonial home, then he found that both her in-laws had gone to village and returned in the evening after he reached there. Moreover, the evidence on record would reveal that P.W.6, father of the deceased admitted that the accused persons have 2 acres of agricultural land in village Pulsundari. One more witness P.W.12 C.S.P. R.K. Rai has also 9 / 10 stated in his cross-examination that accused Ajay Dubey’s parents were not present on reaching the spot. In such a situation, the fact that respondent No.2 (mother-in-law of the deceased) was present at the time of deceased’s death is not proved. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons had committed any act of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased nor there is any evidence to show the presence of respondent No.1 and to force her to commit suicide, inasmuch as, in Merg intimation (Ex.P.8), there was no specific mention with regard to torture and harassment meted out by the deceased’s in- laws’ soon before her death regarding demand of dowry and more so, the allegation made in Merg intimation (Ex.P.8) that the deceased was being harassed regarding demand dowry is bald and omnibus allegation, therefore, credibility of such allegation is doubtful in absence of cogent and clinching evidence. 18. 18. If the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it has been proved beyond doubt that the accused persons had never demanded any dowry at the time of marriage or soon after the marriage, the deceased Sunanda died within three and half months of her marriage by consuming poison, the deceased did not send any letter to her maternal home regarding dowry demand by in-laws after marriage, there is no evidence on record to show that Sunanda was harassed by the respondents with respect to demand of dowry, the accused persons would also call the deceased from her maternal home and would send her parental home willingly and happily and lastly there is also evidence that respondent No.1 Ajay Dubey himself went to his in-laws’ house to 10 / 10 take his wife and the deceased also accompanied him with hale and hearty. 19. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned judgment acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant / State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Anjani