1 2025:CGHC:9444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1134 of 2007 1 – Videshi, aged about 32 years; S/o Late shri Khago Sonani, R/o Village Ahirwara Ward No.7, PS Nandini, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. - Smt. Kalpna Tandi, aged about 22 years, w/o Shri Rupa Tandi, R/o Qtr. 5-B, Behind Packet Quarters, Street No.35, Sector-9, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) 3. Smt. Sweto, aged about 70 years, wife of Late Shri Khago; R/o village Ahirwara, Ward No.7, P.S. Nandini, District Durg (C.G) . Her appeal stands abated by order dated 26.02.2016 ….. Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through PS Nandini , District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 24.02.2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2006 by the District and 2 Sessions Judge, Durg, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : U/s 304-B IPC : RI for 10 years to each appellant. U/s 498-A IPC : RI for 2 years each and fine of Rs.500/-, In default of payment of fine, additional SI for 3 months each. 2. Appellant No. 1 Videshi was the husband of deceased Babita. Since he had completed his sentence, he was given the benefit of remission and was released from jail on 15/02/2014. Therefore, learned counsel does not press the appeal of Appellant no.1. Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed as not pressed. During pendency of appeal, appellant no.3 Sweto Bai, mother-in-law of deceased has died on 03.11.2011, therefore, her appeal stands dismissed as abated by order dated 26.02.2016. Hence, by this decision, only the appeal of appellant no. 2 Mrs. Kalpana Tandi is being disposed of. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant no.1 Videshi and deceased Bilendri @ Babita got married on 04.05.2003 as per Ex.P-6. Appellant no.2 Smt. Kalpana is a married-sister-in law of the deceased. Appellant no.3 Smt. Sweto (since deceased) was mother-in-law of deceased Bilendri @ Babita. On 22.11.2005 Babita was admitted in hospital for delivery, she gave birth to a baby child who died after a few days on 27.11.2005 and thereafter she was discharged from hospital from where her uncle Babulal (P.W. 1) brought her to his house. After delivery, she became very weak. She resided in her uncle Babulal’s house for about 15-20 days from where she had gone to her parents house at Odisha. Since the marriage of younger brother of appellant no.1 was fixed on 06.03.2006, appellant went Odisha on 27.02.2006 to bring her to his home for attending marriage. During this period, she was under depression due to death of her new born baby and did not enjoy the marriage ceremony and she was always talking about new born baby who died. On 12.03.2006, when all the family members and relatives were sitting in the court- 3 yard, she was in her bed room and poured kerosene and set her self ablaze to commit suicide. After hearing her hue and cry, all the family members rushed to her room and tried to save her by extinguishing fire. She was immediately admitted in hospital where she died on 13.03.2006 due to burn injuries. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing investigation and procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 24 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the accused have also examined Dr. A.K. Biswas as D.W.1 and exhibited 6 documents to defend their case. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the alleged incident took place on 12/03/2006 and two years before that, on 11/03/2004, the sister-in-law of the deceased Babita, the appellant Mrs. Kalpana Tandi, got married. Thus, at the time of the incident, she was neither present in the house nor there exists any clear evidence that her harassment had incited Babita to commit suicide or that any common intention had been formed between appellant No. 2 Mrs. Kalpana Tandi and the other appellants. He further submits that at the time of death, Mrs. Babita had sustained 100% burn injuries and some time ago she had not only become weak but was also in a state of depression due to the death of her child. In such a situation, the prosecution could not prove that appellant No. 2 Mrs. Kalpana had in any way committed any crime of dowry or harassment or was involved in the common intention. Therefore, her conviction is not worth upheld. Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment of conviction needs interference and the appellant should be acquitted. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the death of deceased took place in the matrimonial house and 4 looking to the manner of incident which took place and after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, which needs no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 8. It is clear from the entire evidence presented by the prosecution that Babita was married to appellant no. 1 Videshi on 04/05/2003. Appellant no. 2 Kalpana is the sister-in-law of the deceased and appellant no. 3 Mrs. Sweto is the mother-in- law of the deceased. Dr. Rohit Gupta (PW-13) has stated that Babita was admitted in burn unit on 12/03/2006 at 02.30 pm. She was conscious but her mental condition was not good and she was 100% burnt and her condition was critical. Later, it is stated that she died on 13/03/2006 at 06.35 am. Thus, it is clear that Babita died in in other than natural circumstances due to burning in fire within only 03 years of marriage, in other words within 07 years of marriage. 9. In the above situation, it is to be seen whether, just before the death, appellant No. 2, Mrs. Kalpana, on her own or in furtherance of a common intention, had harassed Babita for dowry and treated her with cruelty, as a result of which, the above incident took place? 10. According to the prosecution case, deceased Babita was demanded a colour TV and Luna by her in-laws. This allegation of dowry demand has been made by the witnesses in general form. The main evidence in respect of this allegation which has come up in the prosecution case and which is crucial evidence for the conviction of appellant no. 2 Smt. Kalpana are the mother of the deceased Babita, Surjo Tandi (PW-5), father Gajendra Tandi (PW-8), uncle Babulal Tandi (PW-1) and aunt Smt. Sangeeta (PW-6). 5 11. Deceased Babita lived with her uncle Babulal Tandi (PW-1) for a long time. Uncle Babulal Tandi has stated in his evidence that whenever Babita used to come, she used to tell that the accused, i.e. all the appellants were demanding a colour TV and a Luna vehicle from her. In the said statement, Babulal Tandi (PW-1) has not clearly named sister-in-law appellant no. 2 Mrs. Kalpana and made the allegation. Rather, in paragraph 7, it has been stated that when Babita was admitted in the hospital, on being asked, she had said that the three appellants had harassed her. However, it is a significant fact that the treating doctor Rohit Gupta (PW-13) has stated in cross-examination that when Babita was admitted in Sector 9 hospital, she was not in a position to talk and in his presence Babita did not talk to any relative. When medical opinion was taken for recording Babita's dying declaration, even then Dr. Rohit Gupta (PW-13) has mentioned in the report Ex.P-30 that she is not in a condition to give her statement. In this situation, the statement of uncle Babulal Tandi (PW-1) that Babita had told him about the appellant harassing her in the name of dowry while she was admitted in the hospital is not found to be credible. 12. The aunt of deceased Babita namely Smt. Sangeeta (PW-6) has said that when Babita used to come to her parental house, she used to tell that the appellants used to beat her demanding colour TV etc. and sister-in-law appellant no. 2 Kalpana used to prevent her from cooking food. But aunt Smt. Sangeeta (PW-6) has admitted in cross-examination that Babita's child died 2-4 days after her delivery due to which she used to remain sad and had become weak. She has also admitted that she had not spoken to Babita before her death. Thus, the facts regarding harassment of Babita for dowry by appellant no. 2 Mrs. Kalpana just before her death by burning in fire have not emerged even in the statement of Smt. Sangeeta (PW-6). 13. Mother of deceased namely Surjo Tandi (PW-5) has said in her court statement that Babita used to say about the harassment meted out to her by her husband and mother-in-law. She has not taken the name of her sister-in-law. Surjo 6 Tandi (P.W.5) has later said that when she went to Sector 9 Hospital and met Babita, she had told her in the conversation that along with her husband and mother-in-law, her sister-in-law also always harassed her. But it is noteworthy that according to Dr. Rohit Gupta (PW-13), Babita was not in a position to talk while she was admitted in the hospital. In such a situation, the statement of Surjo Tandi (PW- 5) is not found to be reliable that while she was admitted in the hospital, Babita must have told about being harassed by appellant no. 2 Kalpana. 14. The father of the deceased Babita namely Gajendra (PW-8) has stated in his court statement that along with the other appellants, the sister-in-law also used to beat Babita. But it appears that he never complained about this in the society. There is no evidence with any specific information about the beatings by the appellant number-2 sister-in-law Kalpana as to when, where and how she had ever beaten Babita in any manner. According to paragraph-23 of the statement of uncle Babulal Tandi (PW-1), appellant number-2 Kalpana was married 1 ½ years before Babita's death. In such a situation, no reliable and sufficient evidence is found to prove that Babita's unnatural death occurred as a result of some torture or cruelty by appellant no. 2 Kalpana just before the incident. There is no other evidence on record to show that sister-in-law appellant No. 2, Mrs. Kalpana was also present in the house of the appellants at the time of the incident or just before the incident where Babita died due to burning. 15. In view of the above discussion, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to produce clear, sufficient and reliable evidence to convict the appellant Mrs. Kalpana under Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction placed against her is not found to be sustainable. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentenced is set aside. Appellant No. 2,Smt. Kalpana Tandi is acquitted of the offence u/s 498-A & 304-B IPC. 7 17. The appellant Smt. Kalpana Tandi is on bail. She is not required to again surrender in this case. However, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao