1 2025:CGHC:5255-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 152 of 2018 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ganesh Ram Patel S/o Nankiram Patel, Aged About 55 Years, 2 - Sheshnarayan D/o Ganesh Ram Patel, Aged About 24 Year, 3 - Madhusudan Patel S/o Ganesh Ram Patel, Aged About 30 Years, 4 - Barbaspurhin @ Savitri, W/o Madhusudan Patel, Aged About 25 Years, 5 - Hirabai W/o Ganesh Ram Patel, Aged About 50 Years, All Are R/o Balouda, Police Station Gidhauri, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 29/01/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.29 17:52:22 +0530 2 legality and propriety of the judgment dated 04/10/2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (F.T.C.), Balodabazar (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.09/2017, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, is that the marriage of the deceased- Akshay Kumari was solemnized with the respondent no.2- Sheshnarayan sometimes in the year, 2015 and after 1 and ½ year of her marriage, she died because of burn injury on 24/02/2016. Her father-in-law, namely, Ganesh Ram has informed the Police Station, Gidhauri, District Balodabazar, regarding her death and, thereafter, on 29/08/2016, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by deceased’s father, namely, Chabilelal, alleging therein, that his daughter was harassed by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry and, alleged further that 10-12 days prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, his elder daughter-in-law, namely, Saraswati had gone to her house alongwith 3-4 women, where deceased informed her that she was being maltreated by her in-laws. Based upon the said merg intimation as well as upon the said written report, an inquiry was conducted and FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered on 20/09/2016 against the respondents with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after completion of usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh, with regard to the said offence in connection with Crime No.167/2016 and the 3 matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Special Judge (FTC), Balodabazar, where, the charges against the respondents have been framed under Section 304-B/34 IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302/34 IPC and, the charges, so framed, were denied by the respondents and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, while one witness 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 since none of the prosecution witnesses have stated anywhere that the deceased was maltreated and/or harassed by her in-laws on account of the demand of dowry, therefore, they cannot be attributed for the commission of the alleged offence and, accordingly, they have been acquitted and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Ms. Smita Jha, 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, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime as such. 4 6) Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as 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 marriage of the deceased, namely, Akshay Kumari was solemnized with respondent no.2- Sheshnarayan sometimes in the year, 2015, who was found to be dead owing to burn injury on 24/02/2016 and, merg intimation regarding the said incident was reported to the concerned Police Station by her father-in-law and thereafter, the father of the deceased, namely, Chabilelal has lodged the written report (Ex.P-1) on 29/08/2016 by alleging, inter-alia, that his daughter was being harassed by her in-laws on account of the demand of motorcycle and, based upon the enquiry, the respondents were charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. 9) In order to establish the fact that the deceased was maltreated by her in-laws, the prosecution was required to establish the said fact by way of producing the cogent and reliable evidence. However, from perusal of the statement of father (PW-06) of the deceased, namely, Chabilelal, it appears that he was not aware as to how his daughter was died in her in-law’s house. Although, it was stated by him at para-9 that his elder daughter-in-law, namely, Saraswati has informed him that his daughter was being maltreated by her in-laws 5 on account of demand of dowry, but it is, however, not found to be corroborated by her (PW-01) statement. It is stated further by him (PW-06) at para-13 that his daughter has raised no complaint against her husband and in-laws. Besides, none have stated that the deceased was harassed and/or maltreated by her in-laws on account of the demand of dowry. The prosecution has, thus, failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence in order to attribute the respondents with regard to the commission of offence mentioned herein-above. 10) In view thereof, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant