1 2025:CGHC:48763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 441 of 2007 Aakash Kashyap, S/o Chandrashekar Kashyap, aged about 25 years, R/o near Maharishi Vidhya Mandir, Mangala, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23.09.2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 392/2006 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Chandra Shekar of the charges, but convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304(B) of I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years. U/s 498(A) of I.P.C. R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated from the impugned judgment is that the marriage of the deceased Kavita alias Pinki alias Durga, daughter of Jagdish Kashyap and Vimla Kashyap was solemnized prior to 3 years of incident with the appellant Aakash Kashyap, in which the father of the deceased gave dowry according to his capacity. On 09.08.2006 the Doctor, CIMS Bilaspur presented memo on the death of Kavita Kashyap, on which the Police Station Civil Lines registered the morgue intimation No. 71/06. During the investigation it was discovered from the statements of parents of the deceased that the accused Aakash Kashyap and his father, i.e., father-in-law of the deceased viz. Chandrashekar Kashyap that they regularly demanded dowry because of which the deceased died under suspicious circumstances as she consumed poison and ended her life. The police registered the above crime no. for the offences against the appellant and his father. 3. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were taken into custody and the statement of the accused persons/appellants and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion 3 of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been adduced in their defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the learned trial Court has misconceived the law involved in the case and misappreciated the evidence on record. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact of too late F.I.R. The learned trial Court ought to have held the statement of PW-02, father of the deceased in which he clearly stated that her daughter and son-in-law regularly visit her paternal house and they also visit her regularly. The learned trial Court ought to have held the statement of PW-02, in which he vividly stated that when he had conversation with his son-in-law, he told him that he is not aware of any thing related to dowry, his father and mother spoke regarding it and his son-in-law never demanded dowry from him. The learned trial Court 4 ought to have held the statement of PW-03, sister of the appellant in which she clearly stated that deceased was suffering from mental problem and when mental attacks came she became very angry and she used to do anything, recalling one such incident, she told that the deceased set fire in the house for 2-3 times and it is also clear from her statement that one year back, the deceased tried to commit suicide by consuming ant powder. The fact of consuming ant powder is also supported by PW-08 uncle of the deceased. The learned trial Court ought to have held the statement of PW-05 grandmother of the deceased, in which he clearly stated that the deceased never told her about the dowry and she came to know regarding this fact only after death of the deceased. The learned trial Court ought to have held the statement of PW-08 uncle of the deceased, in which he clearly stated that, the deceased never told him about dowry. The statement of PW/-1 mother of the deceased is totally unreliable and baseless. The whole findings of learned trial Court is not based on reliable and legal evidence and conclusion and reasoning is contrary to principles of criminal law. The impugned judgment and findings is contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. As such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chabi Karmakar and others v. State of West Bengal reported in (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 398, in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454. 8. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned 5 judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present appellants, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC read with 34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Chandra Shekar of both the charges, but convicted the appellant under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. 11. It is an admitted position in this case that the deceased Kavita was married to the accused/appellant Aakash Kashyap prior to three years of the date of incident and she committed suicide on 09.08.2006 by consuming poison. 12. (PW/01) Vimala Bai, mother of the deceased has stated that the co- accused Chandra Shekar used to say to her daughter (deceased) that he gave Rs. 10,000/- as dowry for his daughter’s marriage and used to taunt my daughter (deceased) by saying that her parents did not give any dowry and he demanded Rs. 10,000/-. She admitted her signature on inquest notice vide Ex. P/01 and inquest memo vide Ex. P/02. In cross-examination, she admitted that at the time of marriage no dowry 6 was demanded by the accused persons and she admitted in para 9 & 10 of her cross-examination that her daughter came to her house at that time, she stated about the demand of dowry and after leaving our house, my daughter was alive for almost two years and during these two years neither my son-in-law nor my daughter came to my house. She also admitted that they never called for any social meeting regarding demand of dowry and also never filed any complaint before any police station and she admitted that after death of her daughter, she immediately did not lodge any F.I.R. and after 15 days they went to the police station. She further admitted in para 13 of her cross- examination that after 15 days of death of her daughter, when police came to her house and recorded their statement, at that time they stated about demand of dowry. In para 15 of her cross-examination she admitted that she has hired an advocate in this case. She also admitted that while giving her statement to the police, she told that the accused taunted her daughter by saying to bring Rs.10,000/- as dowry from her parents' house and as she did not bring, the accused persons subjected her daughter to harassment and cruelty and she can’t tell the reason as to why the aforesaid fact has not come in Ex. D/1. 13. (PW/02) Jagdish, father of the deceased also stated the same facts as of his wife (PW/01), but he also admitted in his cross-examination that the accused/appellant is financially sound than them. In para 5 of his cross- examination he admitted that his daughter never told him about demand of dowry and he also admitted that the accused never demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him and he admitted the suggestion of the defence that at the time of inquest memo, he was present, but at that 7 time his daughter did not complaint regarding demand of dowry and after 15 days they recorded their statement and allegation was made by them regarding demand of dowry. 14. (PW/06) B. N. Rai, Head Constable prepared the inquest memo vide Ex. P/2 and lodged F.I.R vide Ex. P/3 and he admitted that at the time of inquest memo, mother and father of the deceased were present, but they have not leveled any allegation against the accused. 15. (PW/08) Shravan Kashyap, agriculturist, uncle of the deceased stated that the accused had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the deceased, but in his cross-examination he admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. He further admitted that whenever, the deceased comes to her parents’ house, she visits his house too and the deceased never complained against the accused regarding anything. 16. From close scrutiny of statement of parents of deceased and other witnesses, it is clear that they have only stated demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the accused, but they have also admitted that since two years the deceased has never been to her parents’ house and at the time of marriage, no demand was made by the accused persons regarding dowry. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charanjeet Singh (supra) held in paras 11 & 12 which reads as under:- “11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath’s case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- 8 “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: ( i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” as: (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), or (ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression “dowry” is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression “cruelty”, as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences.” 12. As the aforesaid case was also pertaining to dowry death, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was also discussed in detail in paras 29 to 31 of the aforesaid judgment. The same are extracted below:- “29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith. 9 30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012 overeased to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the sections involved, lest justice is the casualty”. 18. In the light of above cited judgment and in the present case also it is clear that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove essential ingredients of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act. As Hon’ble Apex Court held in Charanjeet Singh (supra) that mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial house within 07 years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. As such, it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove essential ingredients of Sections 304B of IPC that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to any cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate these facts and convicted the accused/appellant, so the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in eyes of law. 19. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of 10 conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges leveled against him. 20. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju