1 2025:CGHC:27206-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 319 of 2010 State Of Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Videshlal, aged about 30 years, S/o Narottam Lodhi, R/o Dhanatola Andi, Chhuvatola, P.O. Bortalao, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondent : Shri Ashwell Franklin, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Samir Singh, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 24.06.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 21.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.06.25 11:06:29 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Trial No.29/2002, whereby, the respondent- Videshlal has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34 and 120-B/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 08.01.2002, a report was lodged by one Shatrughan (PW-1), Kotwar of the village before the Police Station, Bortalab of District Rajnandgaon, stating therein, that when he reached near the house of respondent – Videshlal, he has seen some persons were gathered there and upon asking them, it was informed that the respondent- Videshlal has assaulted his wife- Sunita and because of that she died. He stated further that the respondent- Videshlal, who was present over there, upon asking from him, told that he has committed the murder of his wife and the said fact was disclosed by him in presence of Shyam, Krishna, Shankar, Aasharam and others’ and, based upon the alleged information, an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was registered against the respondent. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the deceased was harassed and maltreated not only by her husband, but also by her brothers-in-law, namely, Birsingh, Dilip, Sanjeev @ Kali, Anand @ Nandu and also by her father-in-law, namely, Narottam and mother-in-law, namely, Fulvati Bai. During investigation, a nylon string was recovered from the respondent- Videshlal on 08.01.2002 vide Ex.P-6 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Radhelal (PW-4) and Shatrughan (PW-1). Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Surendra Bagga (PW-6), who vide his report (Ex.P-7) 3 opined the cause of death to be asphyxia, probably on account of strangulation by string. After completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent and the said in- laws of the deceased before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 120-B of IPC and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where charges have been framed against them under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34 and 120-B/34 of IPC and the charges so framed were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent and others’, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 09 documents, while none was examined by them in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that neither the respondent- Videshlal, nor the in-laws of the deceased were involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred only against the husband of the deceased, namely, Videshlal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the father and mother of the deceased, have not been scanned in its 4 proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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 initially, based upon the First Information Report (Ex.P-1), an offence was registered against the respondent- Videshlal under section 302 of IPC and during the investigation, when it was revealed that the deceased was maltreated and harassed by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry, therefore, the alleged offence mentioned herein-above was registered against them. In order to establish the alleged allegations, Shatrughan (PW-1), who lodged the merg intimation (ExP-3) as well as the FIR (Ex.P-1) stated that when he asked the respondent regarding the death of his wife, he then informed him in presence of Shankar, Aasha and others’ that because of the quarrel, he killed her. It, however, appears from his cross-examination, para 2, that there was no quarrel between the respondent- Videshlal and his wife- Sunita, nor has stated that he was informed by him how Sunita has murdered. 9. Tularam (PW-2) is father of the deceased and according to his statement, it appears that one year after the marriage of his daughter, she was harassed by her in-laws as she was unable to cook food and stated further that he was informed by his deceased daughter that she 5 was maltreated because of demand of Cycle and TV. 10. Krishna (PW-3), who was the villager has stated in his evidence that he was informed by Kotwar- Shatrughan that the respondent- Videsdhlal has killed his wife and stated further that he was informed by said respondent -Videshlal that he committed the murder of his wife while pressing her neck with the aid of string, but in his cross-examination, it was, however, stated that the respondent- Videshlal has confessed regarding death of his wife when he was asked by the police authorities. Likewise, is the statement of Radhelal (PW-4). Vedbati (PW-9) was the mother of the deceased and it reveals from her testimony that after one year of the marriage of her daughter, she was harassed and maltreated because of demand of dowry. It reveals further from her cross-examination, para 6 that during the lifetime of her daughter, no report as such regarding the demand of dowry was made before the Police Station. The statements of others are formal in nature. 11. It, thus, appears from perusal of the aforesaid evidence that neither the demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution is proved by way of any cogent and reliable evidence, nor the extra-judicial confession, as was was made by the respondent- Videshlal, was found to be proved, as the alleged fact was disclosed by him in presence of the police authorities as reflected from the statements of Krishna (PW-3) and Radhelal (PW-4). No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was in any 6 manner involved in connection with the alleged crime and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence, so as to call for any interference this appeal. 12. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita