1 2025:CGHC:16723-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 76 of 2016 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate Korba (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Bajrang Vaishnav S/o Late Kirtandas Vaishnav, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Katghora, Purani Basti, P.S. Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate appears alongwith Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 09/04/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 09/03/2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.66/2014, whereby, the respondent- CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.15 10:45:24 +0530 2 Bajrang Vaishnav has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that the marriage of the deceased- Smt. Ranjana Vaishnav was solemnized with the respondent - Bajrang Vaishnav on 05/05/2011 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals and after solemnization of the marriage, she started living with her husband at Katghora and 1 and ½ year of the marriage, the deceased informed her mother and other family members that, she was being harassed by her husband on account of demand of motorcycle and also tortured her for not being any child. It is alleged further that on 12/04/2014 around 11 PM, the respondent- Bajrang Vaishnav, husband of the deceased, quarreled with her on account of the alleged demand and after pouring kerosene oil, set her ablaze. Further prosecution story is that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, who were sleeping in adjacent room of the respondent, came into the room and thereafter the deceased was laid down in the water tank and, on 13/04/2014 at about 12:30 AM, the respondent- Bajrang Vaishnav and his father informed the brother of the deceased, namely, Arvind Kumar Vaishnav on phone regarding the alleged incident, hearing the same, her said brother and other of her relatives reached the house of the said respondent- Bajrang Vaishnav, where the deceased-Ranjana Vaishnav informed them that her husband on account of demand of motorcycle harassed her and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil. 3 3) On account of the alleged incident, occurred on 12/04/2014, the deceased was admitted into the hospital at Katghora and thereafter she was shifted to Sector-9 Hospital at Bhilai and, from there, she was shifted to Medical College Hospital, Raipur and during the course of her treatment, she succumbed to those injuries on 25/04/2014. Owing to the sad demise of deceased-Smt. Ranjana Vaishnav, the Ward Boy of the concerned hospital has intimated regarding her death to the Police Station, Modhapara, Raipur on 25/04/2014 and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and, not against her father-in-law and mother- in-law as they have committed suicide immediately after the death of said Ranjana Vaishnav. During investigation, dying declaration (Ex.P-13) of the deceased was recorded on 20/04/2014 in presence of the Executive Magistrate and after her death on 25/04/2014, an inquest (Ex.P-2) was made on 25/04/2014 and was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-9), who in turn, has submitted his report (Ex.P-3) while opining the cause of death to be cardio respiratory failure which occurred as a result of burn injuries and their complications. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba against the respondent, in connection with Crime No. 98/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498-A of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, who in turn, has framed the charges against the respondent under 4 Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302 IPC and, the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents, while one was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5) 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- Smt. Ranjana Vaishnav was subjected to harassment and caused her murder by pouring kerosene oil by her husband and, accordingly, the respondent has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial court holding that the respondent is not the author of 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 respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial court. 5 8) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9) From perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged offence has been registered against the respondent with regard to the incident, which took place on 12/04/2014 around 11 PM, when a quarrel took place between the respondent and his wife, the deceased Ranjana Vaishnav for the alleged demand of motorcycle and as she not being any child, owing to which, the respondent poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze and, the respondent was, thus, charge- sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 10) Since the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 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 6 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.” 11) 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. 12) 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 7 of woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for property etc. Therefore, in order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, 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 respondent was wilful, but it has to be established further the degree or intensity of such conduct. 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 respondent could be held guilty with regard to the offence mentioned therein. 13) While keeping the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. 14) Arvind Kumar Vaishnav (PW-1) is the brother of the deceased-Smt. Ranjana Vaishnav and, according to him, he was informed by his deceased sister that she was tortured and harassed by her husband on account of the demand of motorcycle. It is, however, stated that she has not informed him as to what kind of harassment was being given to her and when she was harassed by him and her in-laws. He 8 was informed by her that the respondent has poured the kerosene oil and set her ablaze. It appears further from his testimony that, when she sustained the burn injuries, a preliminary treatment was provided by her husband and thereafter, she was laid into the water tank, when she shouted. In his cross-examination, particularly at paragraph 12, where it was admitted by him that despite knowing the alleged fact, no report as such was lodged by him before the Police Station, Katghora and, it was admitted further at paragraph 15, that after the occurrence of the alleged incident, on 12/04/2014, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of his sister have committed suicide by consuming poison. 15) Smt. Vidya Bai (PW-2) is the mother of the deceased and she was informed by her said daughter that she was harassed on account of demand of dowry. A bare perusal of her testimony would, however, show that she has not stated anywhere that deceased was harassed by her husband or in-laws because of demand of motorcycle. Further of her statement would show that she was informed by her deceased daughter that her husband has poured the kerosene oil and set her ablazed. Sandeep Kumar Vaishnav (PW-3) is the another brother of the deceased- Smt. Ranjana Vaishnav, who was informed by his deceased sister that she was harassed and maltreated by her in-laws on account of demand of motorcycle. A close scrutiny of his statement would, however, show that, he has not stated that the alleged demand of motorcycle was made by her husband, as was stated by his brother Arvind Kumar Vaishnav (PW-1). 9 16) Smt. Shashikala Vaishnav (PW-7) is the sister of the deceased and she was informed by her deceased sister that when she was sitting on ‘Sofa’, at that particular time, her husband has poured the kerosene oil and ablazed her and, stated further, at paragraph 6, that the alleged act of her husband was informed to her at Khatghora in presence of her mother-in-law and stated further that despite knowing the alleged fact, no report, as such, was lodged before the concerned Police Station at Khatghora. Smt. Parvati Patel (PW-6) is the Naib Tehsildar, in whose presence, the dying declaration (Ex.P-13) of the deceased was recorded on 20/04/2014. The evidence of others’ is formal in nature. 17) From perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it appears that although, an allegation was made against the respondent that the deceased was harassed and maltreated on account of demand of motorcycle, but as reflected from the evidence of her brother, namely, Arvind Kumar (PW-1) and sister- Smt. Shashikala Vaishnav (PW-7), they were informed by the deceased regarding the alleged demand of motorcycle, however, that was not the version of his mother- Smt. Vidya Bai (PW-2). There is, thus, disparity in their statements to this effect. Even otherwise, they are the hearsay witnesses as the alleged information regarding demand of motorcycle, alleged to have been made by her husband, was furnished to them by the deceased- Ranjana Vaishnav and even their testimonies are not found to be corroborated by her dying declaration (Ex. P-13), made on 20.04.2014, as it was not revealed from her said dying declaration that the alleged demand of 10 motorcycle was made by her husband, the respondent herein. Therefore, no reliance could be placed upon their testimonies, in order to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty because of demand of alleged motorcycle. That apart, none of the relatives of the deceased have stated that when she was harassed by her husband on account of the alleged demand of motorcycle, so as to hold that she was harassed soon before her death. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the deceased was harassed or maltreated on account of the alleged demand of motorcycle, as alleged by the prosecution. 18) Insofar as the dying declaration (Ex.P-13) is concerned, although it was mentioned in it that she was medically fit for giving the statement, but the Doctor, who has certified as such was, however, not examined, therefore, in absence of examination of the Doctor, it cannot be said that she was in a fit mental condition to state as such. It is to be seen further that when she was hospitalized on 13/04/2014, no oral dying declaration, as such, was made by her to her relatives prior to 20/04/2014, nor any report with regard to the alleged incident was made by any of her relatives, despite knowing the fact that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws. Even, when the inquest (Ex.P-2) was made on 25/04/2014, in presence of her brother-Arvind Kumar Vaishnav (PW-1) and sister-Smt. Shashikala Vaishnav (PW-7), but they have raised no allegation as such that she was being harassed on account of demand of motorcycle by her husband and in-laws and have poured the kerosene oil on her, as alleged by the prosecution. In absence of 11 any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the deceased was either harassed or maltreated by her husband soon before her death on account of the demand of motorcycle or was murdered by him or her in-laws by pouring the kerosene oil upon her, so as to hold the respondent guilty for the commission of the alleged crime. 19) In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant