1 2025:CGHC:27596-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 138 of 2012 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 – Jaitlal, S/o Manglu @ Ramprasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Pandripani, P.S. – Balco Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 2 - Manglu @ Ramprasad, S/o Panchram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Pandripani, P.S. – Balco Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Mogara Bai, W/o Manglu @ Ramprasad, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Pandripani, P.S. – Balco Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : None, though served. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 25/06/2025 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 03/02/2011 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba in Sessions Trial PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.26 11:32:33 +0530 2 No.71/2010, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, the marriage of the deceased- Yasoda Bai was solemnized with respondent No.1- Jaitlal on 08/05/2008, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is alleged by the prosecution that, immediately after solemnization of the marriage, the deceased was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws, owing to which, she died on 20/11/2009. A merg intimation (Ex.P/7) was lodged by her husband- Jaitlal and, thereafter, on 06/01/2010, a written complaint (unexhibited) was lodged by deceased’s father, namely, Santram (PW-1) before the Police Station- Balco and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/10) was registered on 06/01/2010 against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/4 on 21/11/2009 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. M. Singh (PW-9), who vide his report (Ex.P/11) opined that she died because of asphyxia but was unable to state the cause of her death and viscera of her was, therefore, preserved and sent for serochemical analysis, in order to ascertain the cause of her death and, based upon the FSL Report, it was revealed that, she died because of consuming poison (pesticide). After completing the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba against the respondents for the commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC in connection with Crime No.07/2010 and 3 the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge was framed under the aforesaid Section, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents, while one witness (DW-1) 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 the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that, the deceased has died because of harassment and maltreatment by her husband and in-laws on account of the demand of dowry and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice. 7. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the 4 appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 8. The respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 20/11/2009, when the deceased was found dead in her in-laws home. According to the prosecution, she was harassed and maltreated immediately after the solemnization of her marriage by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. 9. In order to establish the aforesaid allegations, father of the deceased, namely, Santram was examined as PW-1 and a bare perusal of his testimony, particularly paragraph 1, would show that no demand was, however, made by the respondents and, it appears further from his testimony that when he has seen the dead body of his daughter, certain injuries on her neck, left hand and eyes were found. 10. Mother of the deceased, namely, Kamla Bai was examined as PW-2 and according to her statement, she was informed by her daughter that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry, who also stated further like her husband (PW-1) at paragraph 6 that, she has seen the injuries on her neck, shoulders and eyes. 11. It, thus, appears from their (PW-1 and PW-2) testimonies that, no specific allegation was, however, made by them that, what kind of dowry was demanded by the respondents, nor any report to this effect was ever made during the life time of their deceased-daughter. That apart, although, it was stated by them (PW-1 and PW-2) that they have seen certain injuries on the body of the deceased but, the Doctor (PW- 5 9) who conducted the autopsy of the dead body has, however, not found any kind of injury on her body. The evidence of the parents was, thus, not found to be corroborated by him (PW-9). It, therefore, appears that they are trying to implicate the respondents falsely, while alleging that their daughter was harassed and maltreated by them, on account of demand of dowry. 12. Pertinently to be noted here further that when an enquiry was conducted based upon the merg intimation (Ex.P/7) lodged by the deceased’s husband on 20/11/2009, no offence as alleged was, however, found to be committed, as reflected from the evidence of Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-8) and, it, therefore, appears that the father of the deceased has deliberately with an ulterior motive, has lodged a complaint on 06/01/2010, i.e. after passing of more than a month and half even without explaining plausible reasons for its delay. 13. It, thus, appears from perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution that there is, in fact, no demand as such was made by the respondents or the deceased was maltreated or harassed for the same. 14. 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/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant