1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 343 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on 03.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 07.03.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Balco Nagar, District Korba, C.G. ...Appellant versus 1. Rajpal @ Bade, S/o Kewal Pal, aged about 27 years, 2. Smt. Gyan Bai, W/o Kewal Pal, aged about 40 Years, Both are Residents of Nehru Nagar, P.S. Balco Nagar, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 23.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.34/2005, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 & 2 herein of the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of deceased- Soni Bai was solemnized with respondent No.1 Rajpal @ Bade on 13th March, 2004 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Soon after the marriage, deceased- AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.07 18:06:19 +0530 2 Soni Bai joined her matrimonial home and after some time of marriage, accused persons started torturing and harassing her mentally and physically for brining insufficient dowry and also used to abuse and commit marpeet with her. Being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment made by respondents/accused persons, on 10.02.2005, deceased-Soni Bai committed suicide by hanging herself. Thereafter, she was taken to Government Hospital, Korba where she was declared brought dead by the Doctor and information about the same was given to Police Station, Rampur, pursuant to which, merg intimations vide Exs.P-7 & P-10 were recorded and FIR (Ex.P-13) has been registered against the accused persons. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-9 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination where PW-13 Dr. Kripal Singh Kawar conducted the postmortem examination and gave his report vide Ex.P-11. According to PW-13 Dr. Kripal Singh Kawar, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia. During investigation, vide Ex.P-2, spot map was prepared and accused persons were taken into custody vide Exs.P-3 & P-4. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court under Sections 304-B & 498-A/34 of IPC. Accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 14 documents connecting the respondents No.1 & 2/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents No.1 & 2/accused persons have 3 examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Sonmati and DW-2 Shantidas Pant and exhibited only one document i.e. Ex.D-1. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No. 1 & 2 herein of said charges leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is completely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.1 & 2 herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that the evidence available on record clearly shows that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry by the respondents No.1 & 2 and on account of which, deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.1 & 2 without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective, thus the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondents No.1 & 2 would support the impugned judgment and submit that it is not proved by the prosecution that any demand of dowry was ever made by the respondents No.1 & 2 and even soon before her death and also instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well merited and needs no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 4 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is present with the idea of proximity test. 11. As regards the principles concerning the above-referred provisions, this Court wishes to refer to the decisions reported in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao 1 & Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N. 2 . 12. In K. Prema S. Rao (supra) it has been held as under:- “16. … To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that 'soon before her death' she was subjected to cruelty and harassment 'in connection with the demand for dowry'.” 13. In Kaliyaperumal (supra) relevant portion reads as under:- “5. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a 1(2003) 1 SCC 217 2(2004) 9 SCC 157 5 natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 14. Now, the question is whether one of the ingredients of the offence is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons in connection with demand of dowry or not? 15. PW-1 Smt. Samarin Bai, mother of the deceased, has stated that after marriage, when deceased came to her parental home, she told her that accused persons used to torture and harass her mentally and physically for brining insufficient dowry / broken materials and also used to taunt her for not bringing colour TV etc., however, the said fact has not been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-13). On the other hand, she has further stated that accused 6 persons used to take good care of her daughter (deceased), but sometimes used to harass her. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in cross-examination, she admitted that before the incident, deceased- Soni Bai did not tell her anything about the demand of dowry or torture made by the accused persons. This apart, PW-2 Smt. Kaleshwari Devi, sister of the deceased, admitted in her cross-examination that after marriage, deceased told her that there was no colour TV and cooler in her in-laws house, but after some time, her mother-in-law/respondent No.2 had purchased colour TV. She also admitted that deceased did not tell her about the demand of cooler and colour TV raised by accused persons. Moreover, PW-3 Sonu Singh, brother of the deceased, also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no dispute between the deceased - Soni Bai and respondent No.1- Rajpal @ Bade with regard to demand of dowry. He also admitted that after marriage, whenever he went to the matrimonial home of deceased, she did not tell him anything about the demand of dowry or harassment made by the accused persons. Furthermore, PW-4 Smt. Geeta Bai also admitted in her cross-examination that deceased- Soni Bai used to tell her that respondent No.1/Rajpal @ Bade takes good care of her. Besides, PW-5 Smt. Shyam Bai, aunt of the deceased, admitted that whenever she used to meet accused persons, they used to talk to her nicely. Apart from that, PW-6 Smt. Champa Bai, another sister of deceased, has also stated that deceased did not tell her anything about the demand of dowry made by the accused persons. 16. Thus, from perusal of above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-1 Smt. Samarin Bai, mother of the deceased with respect to demand of dowry made by accused persons and her statement does not corroborate with other prosecution witnesses 7 and contents of FIR (Ex.P-1), rather it appears that the allegations leveled by her are bald and omnibus, therefore, credibility of her evidence is doubtful. Moreover, Dr. Kripal Singh Kawar (PW-13) who examined the deceased did not notice any injury over the body of deceased, except over neck. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence minutely come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that soon before the death, accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment for demand of dowry and that the accused persons, in any way, instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as such, acquitted them of the said charges as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.1 & 2 herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents No.1 & 2 herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh