1 2025:CGHC:42121 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on: 09.06.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 20. 08.2025 CRA No. 786 of 2006 Hasan Khan S/o Shri Manawar Khan, aged about 26 years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village-Mudagaon, Police Station- Lailunga, District Raigarh, (CG) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgment 01. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh in Sessions Trial no. 76/2005, whereby the appellant stands convicted Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 under Sections 304(B) Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused/appellant was married to the deceased Asiya Khatun, who was deaf and dumb since birth and a son was born out of their wedlock. It is alleged that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment on account of demand for dowry of Rs. 20,000/- soon before her death. Due to the distress caused by the appellant being subjected to harassment and cruelty, on dated 23.04.2005 the deceased Asiya Khatun committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, the deceased Asiya Khatun received 95% burn injuries. After that, the parents of deceased were being informed and the deceased Asiya Khatun was then admitted to the Community Health Centre for treatment, while she was being treated, she succumbed to burn injuries on 13.05.2005. Thereafter, a morgue intimation was registered at Police Station Lailunga by the appellant/accused vide (Ex.P/19). Thereafter, notices vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14 were issued to prepare the Panchanama of dead body of the deceased Asiya Khatun and Spot Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Thereafter, report vide Ex.P/11 was received after the examination of the dead body of the deceased Asiya Khatun. During the course of investigation, a hand written letter given by the appellant/accused to his Father-in-Law, Yousuf Khan was seized as Article A(1) vide Ex.P/17. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P/1. A plastic jerrycan filled with 3 liters of kerosene oil and a match box was seized 3 vide Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4 respectively. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the appellant/accused was arrested and arrest memo vide Ex.P/26 was prepared and an intimation vide Ex.P/27 was delivered to his father Manawar Khan. 03. After completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet under Section 304 (B) of Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused/appellant before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet learned trial Court framed charges against the present appellant for alleged commission of offence 304(B) in alternate Section 306 of IPC to which the accused/appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, one witness has been adduced in his defence. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and 4 contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its right perspective. The learned trial Court has failed to see that there is no evidence to show that the deceased subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave wrong finding. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 07. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Ishlesh Bai Halwa v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 CGHC 9052, in the matter of Santosh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 CGHC 6575, in the matter of Baijnath and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 and in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454. 08. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, as such the impugned judgment is well merited, warranting no interference by this Court. 5 09. 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 the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 304(B) in alternate 306 of IPC against the accused/appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC, but convicted the appellant under Section 304(B) of IPC. 11. (PW/01) Harji Ram neighbour of the appellant stated that he heard that the wife of the appellant committed suicide by setting herself ablaze using Kerosene oil. He admitted his signatures on A to A part on spot map vide Ex. P/01 and on A to A part on seizure memo vide Ex. P/02 and he denied all the suggestion of the prosecution. However, prosecution declared him hostile and he admitted that he gave police statement on A to A part vide Ex. P/03, but denied from B to B part of the same. 12. (PW/02) Manawar Khan stated that on the date of incident the accused/appellant asked money from his wife so that he can bring ration, the deceased Asiya got angry, she did not give a single penny to her husband, took out the money she was having and threw them on the ground. Thereafter, the husband collected the money fell on the ground and handed over the amount to his wife and slapped her, his wife/deceased then prepared food, took bath and after that she fed her 6 husband/accused. After having food, the accused went to watch TV at his relatives house. Father of the accused/appellant went to sleep in his house and after passage of 15-20 minutes he heard outcry of his daughter-in-law/deceased and he went to see as to what happened, and he found that the door was locked from inside and smoke was coming out from the room, he tried to open the door by kicking over it multiple times, but it did not open. Thereafter, he yelled for help, at this his son who was watching T.V., Puran Sai, Saira Bano, Aasik came and all of them tried to open the door and finally the door opened and the latch got broken. As the door opened, Asiya came to veranda (baramda) and the father-in-law of the deceased tried to extinguish the fire by covering her with his loin cloth (lungi) but he wasn't able to extinguish the fire, then Hasan Khan and Punar Sai tried to extinguish the fire by water, but it was too late and Asiya died. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he stated that his son and daughter-in-law were having good relations and he denied the suggestion that his son Hasan Khan demanded from daughter-in-law to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her home and he also denied that his son used to beat his wife-Asiya on account of her not being able to bring Rs. 20,000/-. 13. (PW/03) Yousuf Mohommad father of the deceased stated that his daughter was deaf and dumb and her marriage was solemnized prior to four years of the incident and there is no such transactions during the marriage and the appellant used to quarrel with his daughter by 7 demanding Rs. 20,000/- and the appellant also wrote a letter and the police seized it vide Ex. P/17 and Article A is letter of the accused/appellant. In para 6 he stated that the accused/appellant wrote the said letter a year before the death of Asiya and there is no such demand in the letter by the appellant. In para 21 of his cross- examination he admitted that his son-in-law Hasan Khan never beaten his daughter/deceased before him and never made any demand before him regarding anything. He also admitted that soon after death of his daughter/deceased he has not lodged any report as he was busy in other works. 14. (PW/04) Qamarunissa mother of the deceased stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant wrote a letter to them demanding Rs. 20,000/-. 15. (PW/05) Saira Bano, (PW/06) Amar Sai & (PW/07) Pooran Sai neighbour of the accused/appellant stated that they saw the deceased burning and her father-in-law (PW/02) Manawar Khan, was extinguishing the fire. (PW/08) Md. Hanif uncle of deceased has stated that the deceased Asiya Khan when on being asked as to who made this condition of her, she told to her uncle in a sign language that the accused/appellant is responsible for her condition as he set her ablaze by using Kerosene Oil. He also stated that accused/appellant’s father- in-law has apprised him regarding the letter by saying that it was written by the appellant in which he demanded Rs. 20,000/- and this 8 apart, he also told him that the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased. 16. (PW/09) Dr. S.N. Upadhyay, conducted post mortem of deceased Asiya Khan and found that her death was due to ante-mortem burn injury and infection and gave his report vide Ex. P/15. (PW/16) Karyum stated that Asiya by pointing out at accused told him that he burnt her alive by using Kersone Oil. 17. Learned trial Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that the accused/appellant demanded dowry soon before death of his wife Asiya and he wrote a letter Article (A). The learned trial Court finds in para 26 of the impugned judgment that there is no limitation decided for soon before death, so on the basis of accused/appellant’s letter the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 304(B) of IPC. 18. Article (A) the letter was written by the accused to his father-in-law and in this letter he demanded Rs. 20,000/- on this ground that his business is not running well. Father-in-law of accused (PW/03) Yousuf Mohommad admitted in para 06 that the letter was written before a year of death of his daughter and the appellant has demanded at that time only and then he never made any such demand. In statement of all witnesses there is no whisper of any harassment, related to demand of dowry. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Baijnath (supra) held in paras 25,26 and 27 which reads as thus:- 9 “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304B 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 498A 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. 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.” 20. in the light of above cited judgments and from the close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses, it is clear that pre-requisite to raise presumption under Section 304(B) of IPC and Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been fulfilled. The prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was died within 07 years of marriage and the cause of her death is due to anti 10 mortem burn, but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that soon before her death, the prosecutrix/victim was subjected to any cruelty related to demand of dowry. However, the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and wrongly convicted the appellant. 21. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 22. 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. 23. 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