1 2025:CGHC:88-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 6 of 2014 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through SHO, PS Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. Chatram S/o Leela Singh, Aged About 45 Years, 2. Amrit Kumar S/o Chatram Kenwat , Aged About 20 Years, 3. Kalindri Bai W/o Chatram Kenwat, Aged About 35 Years, All Accused/Respondents Are R/o Kotgarh, PS Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : None. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 02/01/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 06/05/2013, passed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.03 10:38:01 +0530 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.175/2012, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 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-Smt. Gangotri Bai was solemnized with respondent no.2- Amrit Kumar sometimes in the month of June, 2011. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the solemnization of the marriage of the deceased, she was harassed by her in-laws and husband on account of illegal demand of dowry of motorcycle, owing to which, she consumed poison in the intervening night of 29th-30th January, 2012 and because of that she died on 30/01/2012 at 08:00 AM. On account of the alleged incident, father of the deceased, namely, Bedilal has lodged a merg intimation vide Ex.P-1 on 30/01/2012 at 15:00 hours and stated therein that he received the information from one Krishna Kumar that his daughter has died in her in-law’s house at village Kotgarh of Police Station Akaltara. After receiving the said information, an inquiry was conducted and thereafter an FIR (Ex. P-15) was registered on 03/05/2012 in connection with Crime No.125/2012 agaisnt the respondents. Inquest of the deceased was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Lalita Toppo (PW-08), who in turn, has submitted her report (Ex. P-9) while opining the cause of death due to asphyxia which occurred due to suspected case of poisoning. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District 3 Janjgir-Champa against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC in connection with Crime No.125/2012 and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, who in turn, has framed the charges against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 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 09 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents, while none 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 the prosecution has failed to establish the fact regarding the alleged demand of dowry, based on which the deceased Gangotri Bai has committed suicide, therefore, the respondents 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 Court below holding that the respondents are not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, was not scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 4 6) Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged offence has been registered against the respondents with regard to the offence committed in the intervening night of 29th-30th January, 2012, when the deceased Gangotri Bai has committed suicide by consuming poison as, it was alleged that, she was subjected to cruelty on account of illegal demand of motorcycle by the respondents and, the respondents were thereafter charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 304-B/34 and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. 9) Since the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC, therefore, it is necessary to examine the said provisions, which read as under:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) 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) of the woman; or (b) 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 5 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 304 B. Dowry Death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or 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.” 10) According to Section 498-A IPC, the basic ingredients are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far as Clause (a) is concerned have been classified as under :- (i) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman is to commit suicide or (ii) Any wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman or (iii) Any wilful act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the women. 11) The definition of cruelty contained in explanation consists in two parts. Clause (a) relates to wilful conduct, which is of such a nature to drive the woman to commit suicide as observed here-in-above. The second part, which contains in Clause (b) relates to harassment of woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand 6 for property etc. Therefore, in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as provided under the explanation to the said provision and it would not be enough to show that the conduct of the respondents was wilful, but it has to be established further the degree or intensity of such conduct, which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In other words, it would not be sufficient enough to say that the deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Insofar as the ingredients provided under Section 304-B are concerned, it was 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 therein. 12) While keeping the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. 13) Bedilal (PW-01) was the father of the deceased-Gangotri Bai and it was stated by him that after performing the “Gauna Ceremony”, his daughter started living with her in-laws, who were harassing her on account of demand of motorcycle and, similar is the statement of the mother of the deceased, namely, Mangali Bai (PW-03), whereas, Jamantri Bai (PW-02) who is the aunty of the deceased Gangotri Bai has stated that because demand of cash amount she was 7 maltreated by her in-laws. It is, however, to be seen at this juncture that the allegation as was levelled by the prosecution against the respondents was that since the deceased was harassed because of demand of cash amount of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and the motorcycle, however, with regard to the cash amount of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- neither the father, nor the mother of the deceased has stated as such. It is to be seen further that at the time of merg inquiry, the statement of the father of the deceased was recorded on 30/01/2012, however, he has not stated anything regarding the alleged demand, i.e., the demand of cash amount as well as the demand of motorcycle. It is to be seen further that when their statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 06/05/2012, it was stated by them that the in-laws of the deceased had demanded cash amount of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and the motorcycle, but, as observed here-in-above from their Court statements they have, however, found to be deviated from their alleged statements. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of the alleged demand and because of which she has committed suicide by consuming poison. 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. 14) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant