1 2025:CGHC:18091-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 225 of 2017 The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Kamdeo S/o Dageshwar Sen, Aged About 31 Years 2 - Dageshwar Sen S/o Chatur Singh Sen, Aged About 54 Years 3 - Kantibai W/o Dageshwar Sen, Aged About 51 Years, All are R/o Village Bhimbhori, P.S. Berla, District Bemetara (CG) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.G.A. For Respondents : Ms. Pooja Lunia, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 22/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 26.12.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.04.23 10:40:44 +0530 2 in Sessions Trial No.07/2012, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and in alternatively, under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that the marriage of Smt. Archana @ Purnima Sen (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent No.1- Kamdeo on 17.04.2009 and, after the solemnization of her marriage, she started living with her husband and in-laws in the matrimonial house. It is alleged by the prosecution that after some time of her marriage, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of Rs.10-20 thousand and of motorcycle and, because of that she was compelled to pour the kerosene oil and set her ablaze, owing to which, she was admitted to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur on 23.07.2011 and during the course of her treatment, she died on 26.07.2011. On account of her death, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-16) was lodged by the Ward Boy of the said Hospital before the Police Station, Modhapara on 26.07.2011 and during the course of its enquiry, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the mother of the deceased, before the Police Station, Berla, District Durg, alleging therein, that after the solemnization of the marriage of her daughter, her husband and in-laws were demanding Rs.10-20 thousand, as well as the motorcycle and, for which, she was physically and mentally tortured and because of that they burnt her daughter and, based upon the same, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered on 13.12.2011 in connection with Crime No.331/2011 against the 3 respondents for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted on 27.07.2011 vide Ex.P-5 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-17), who opined vide his report (Ex.P-18) the cause of death to be cardio-respiratory failure, which occurred owing to burns and their complications. During investigation, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Naib Tahsildar, O.P. Dubey (PW-16) and after recording the statements of the relatives of the deceased, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara against the respondents for the offence mentioned herein-above and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, where the charge has been framed against the respondents under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and in alternatively, under Section 302/34 of IPC, which was 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 17 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the dying declaration, vis-a-vis, the report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the mother after passing of a considerable period of 5 months, held that the respondents are not involved in 4 connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein-above 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 involved in connection with the alleged crime, are apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted based on the allegations that after the solemnization of marriage, the deceased was harassed and maltreated by them because of demand of motorcycle and money, owing to which, she has taken an extreme step of committing suicide by burning herself. Since the respondents have been charge- sheeted with regard to the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, it is, therefore, necessary to examine the said provisions, which reads as under :- “304 B. Dowry Death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or 5 occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 9. According to the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provision, it is evident that in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents under the said provision, it would be incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry and only thereafter, the respondents could be held guilty with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. 10. While keeping in view the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. In order to establish the alleged allegations that after the solemnization of the marriage of the deceased, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws, the mother of 6 her, namely, Smt. Meera Bai Sen was examined as PW-1 and according to her statement, it appears that she received the information from her son-in-law, namely, Kamdeo on 23rd on mobile that her daughter has burnt. She stated further that whenever her daughter used to come, she always informed that because of demand of Rs.25,000/- and for vehicle, she was tortured by her husband, mother-in-law- Kantibai and father-in-law– Dageshwar Sen. It, however, appears from para 9 of her statement that though, she has received the said information from her daughter that she was tortured by her husband and in-laws as such, but no report was lodged against them and has admitted the fact that after the solemnization of the marriage, her son-in-law has purchased a motorcycle and it reveals further from her testimony that even at the time of inquest made on 27.07.2011, she has not raised any complaint against any of the respondents. Moreover, similar is the statement of her father- Shankarlal Sen(PW-2), who has categorically admitted the fact at para 10, that his daughter has raised no complaint of any nature either against her husband or her in-laws in the year 2009 and same was the position also in the year 2010, nor has lodged any complaint either before his community or in the Panchayat for the said period of two and half years. Further of his statement would show that after 5 months of the occurrence of the alleged incident, they have not lodged any complaint or report before the Police Station at Berla. 7 11. Santosh Kumar Sen (PW-3) is the brother of the deceased and he has also stated as was narrated by his parents that his sister was being tortured and harassed by her husband and in-laws because of the alleged demand. 12. Although, it was stated by the relatives of the deceased, as observed herein-above, that on account of the demand of motorcycle and an amount of Rs.25,000/-, the deceased was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws, but, none of them have, however, stated anywhere that soon before her death, she was harassed or maltreated by them as such. Even, a written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by her mother would reveal the fact that she was harassed because of demand of Rs.10-20 thousand and not Rs.25,000/- as alleged before the Court. The statements of theirs’, thus, appears to be a false one and appears to have been made in order to implicate them for the commission of the alleged offence. 13. It is to be seen further that when the deceased was in Hospital, her statement was recorded by O.P. Dubey (PW-16), the Naib Tahsildar of village- Bhanupratappur and a bare perusal of her dying declaration, marked as Ex.P-17, would reveal the fact that she has no complaint either against her husband or her in-laws and, rather her relations with them were found to be cordial. 14. What is, therefore, reflected from the evidence led by the prosecution that, neither the report was lodged immediately after receiving the information regarding the alleged harassment or 8 maltreatment meted out to her by her husband or in-laws, nor any meeting was convened in this regard in the Panchayat, nor any complaint was made at the time of inquest and, it appears that for the first time and that too after passing of the considerable period of 5 months upon her death, a report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by her mother, alleging that, her daughter was being harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws because of the alleged demand, which was, however, not found to be corroborated even by her dying declaration (Ex.P-17). The prosecution has, thus, failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that the respondents are involved in any manner with regard to the commission of the alleged offence, occurred on 23.07.2011, when the deceased has poured kerosene oil on herself and died on account of that on 26.07.2011. 15. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit is, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita