1 2025:CGHC:28975-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 323 of 2010 • State Of Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Jawahar Lal Jaiswal (Deleted) As Per Hon’ble Court’s Order Dated 05-02-2025. 2 - Beena Devi Jaiswal S/o Jawahar Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, District Koria, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shakuntala Jaiswal W/o Sita Ram Jaiswal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, District Koria, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra Jaiswal (Deleted) As Per Hon’ble Court’s Order Dated 05-02-2025. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 30/06/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 10/08/2002, passed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.01 10:36:59 +0530 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.399/1996, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Neelam Jaiswal was solemnized with respondent no.4- Rajendra Jaiswal, who passed away during the pendency of this appeal, sometimes in the month of February, 1992. It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was maltreated and harassed by her brother-in-law –Jawahar Lal (Jeth), sister-in-law - Beena Devi (Jethani), sister-in-law –Shakuntala Jaiswal (Nanand), her husband- Rajendra Jaiswal and mother-in-law, namely, Bhuneshwari, who died during the trial, on account of demand of Rs.20,000/- and Refrigerator and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-28) was registered on 22/06/1996 by Police Station Manendragarh in connection with Crime No.195/1996 against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-2 and was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Suresh Tiwari (PW-5), who vide his report (Ex.P-20) opined the cause of death to be Hypovolemic shock occurred due to extensive burn injury of 99% and, during the investigation, a dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 21/06/1996 vide Ex.P-27 and, after completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 3 304-B of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, who in turn, has framed the charges against them with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and in alternatively under Section 302 of IPC 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 15 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents, while one witness (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 respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the father (PW-1), brother (PW-3) and the sister (PW-12) of the deceased have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents have supported the impugned judgment of acquitted, as passed by the trial Court. 4 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) The respondents, are charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the deceased- Neelam Jaiswal was harassed and maltreated by her brother-in-law –Jawahar Lal (Jeth), sister-in-law - Beena Devi (Jethani), sister-in-law –Shakuntala Jaiswal (Nanand), her husband- Rajendra Jaiswal and her mother-in-law, namely, Dhaneshwari, who died during the trial, on account of demand of Rs.20,000/- as well as the Refrigerator. In order to establish the alleged allegations, a dying declaration, marked as Ex.P-27 was placed on record and, a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that the allegation was made by her against her brother-in-law –Jawahar Lal (Jeth), mother-in-law, namely, Dhaneshwari, sister-in-law – Shakuntala Jaiswal (Nanand) and sister-in-law -Beena Devi (Jethani) that they have harassed her, owing to which, she has burnt herself on 21/06/1996. It, thus, appears from a bare perusal of her dying declaration (Ex.P-27) that no allegation as such regarding demand of Rs.20,000/- as well as the Refrigerator was, however, made, nor any kind of allegation was made against her husband. That apart, it appears from the testimony of the father (PW-1) of the deceased that he came to know regarding the alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- and the Refrigerator from the letters (Ex.P-4 to Ex.P- 12A) written by his deceased-daughter, but, has admitted specifically by him at paragraph 20 that none of her alleged letters, 5 the alleged fact regarding demand of Rs.20,000/- as well as the Refrigerator was mentioned, nor the alleged fact was revealed from his statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., except the alleged allegation that was levelled against his son-in- law/ husband of the deceased. Although, it was alleged agaisnt his son-in-law as such, but the alleged fact was, however, not found to be corroborated by the dying declaration (Ex.P-27) of his deceased daughter. It, thus, appears that the alleged allegation was levelled falsely by him. 9) Besides, it reveals from the testimony of deceased’s brother, namely, Pradeep Jaiswal (PW-3) and sister-Sushma (PW-12) that she and her husband were living separately from her brother-in-law, namely, Jawahar Lal and his wife. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution that the deceased was maltreated and harassed on account of the alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- as well as the Refrigerator. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that on account of the alleged harassment she has taken such an extreme steps of committing suicide by burning herself. The trial Court after due consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant