1 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025:CGHC:33709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 278 of 2013 Judgment Reserved on: 25.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 17.07.2025 1 - Ramvilas Sahu, S/o Premlal Sahu, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village Goindri, PS- Pathariya, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Premlal Sahu S/o Fekau Ram Sahu, aged about 50, Years R/o Village Goindri, PS- Pathariya, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhuri Bai @ Jagmati Bai W/o Prem Lal Sahu aged about 45 Years R/o Village Goindri, PS Pathariya, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through PS- Pathariya, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellants : Mrs. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgement 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 28.02.2013 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No. 38/2011, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 304 -(B) of IPC R.I. for 10 years each U/S 498 -(A) of IPC R.I. for 01 year each, with fine amount of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month each. (Both substantive sentences shall run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that prior to two years of the date of incident i.e., on 16.05.2011, marriage was solemnized between the deceased Kanti Bai Sahu and appellant No. 1/ Ramvilas. It is alleged that subsequently, the accused persons/appellants started harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of cash, motorcycle and partition of the agricultural land, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands hanged herself in her in-laws house, upon search, a suicide note was found from the cloth of the deceased, in which it was mentioned regarding her suicide, however, it was admitted by Ramvilas/appellant No.1 that the said note was written by him. On the basis of which, Morgue intimation vide Ex. P/11 was prepared regarding the death of the deceased and seizure of the same has been made vide Ex. P/1 and vide Ex. P/3, notice was sent, vide Ex. P/2 panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, the medical examination of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/9 and as per Ex. P/13 offence has been registered against the appellant No. 1 and he was incarcerated vide Ex. P/15. As the appellant No. 1 himself admitted that 3 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh the suicide note was being written by him, so the copy of handwriting of appellant No. 1 was seized vide Ex. P/6 and the report of handwriting expert was obtained vide Ex. P/16. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate- First Class, Mungeli. Thereafter, the said case was committed to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, the matter was registered as Sessions Trial No.38/2011 and the appellants were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 306, 498 (A) in alternate Section 302 of IPC, to which they abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in inaugural of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and conviction of learned Trial Court is illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Netram (PW-2) who is the father of the deceased admitted this fact that he was present during the panchnama of his daughter’s/deceased death and his wife 4 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh was also present, but at that time they did not disclose the fact to the police regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and one motorcycle as a dowry. During morgue intimation, the statement of Netram and his wife were recorded by the police, but prosecution utterly failed to prove the allegations so leveled against the appellants. Vedram (PW-4), uncle of the deceased stated that deceased Kanti Bai was happy in her husband’s house and also stated that during one and half year of the marriage, there was no demand of dowry from the side of the appellants, however, during this period, the deceased Kanti Bai frequently visited her parental home and he further stated that during the thirteenth- day ritual following a death, 100 to 200 people gathered, however he did not disclose the fact to anyone that her niece/deceased was subjected to torture and there was demand of dowry from the appellants. Panch witness namely Sukhmat Bai (PW-3) stated that she did not find injuries on the body of the deceased. Sanat Kumar Sahu (PW-1) stated that a piece of paper was seized by the Police vide Ex. P/1. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that statements of other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and in morgue report, appellant/Ramvilas stated that in the night of 15.05.2011, deceased Kanti Bai had made an allegation about the character of Ramvilas by saying that he has second wife and that is why he comes late in the night, so some quarrel took place between them, but it was not towards the demand of dowry and there was no reason for the deceased Kanti Bai to commit suicide, therefore Section 304-B of IPC was not at all proved, but the trial Court has absolutely erred by concluding that offence under Section 304-B of IPC is proved. 5 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the aforesaid charges. In support of her contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand1 and in the matter of Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana.2 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Kanti Bai died within 07 years of marriage, solemnized with appellant No. 1/Ramvilas Sahu and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants for demand of dowry. So, the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted the accused/appellants. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges under Sections 304 (B), 306 & 498 (A) of IPC and in alternate Section 302 of IPC against the accused/appellants and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/appellants of the charges under Sections 302 & 306 of IPC, but convicted them under Sections 304 (B) and 498 (A) of IPC. 9. It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Kanti Bai died on 16.05.2011 by hanging. Morgue intimation was recorded vide Ex. P/11 on the information given by the appellant No. 1/Ramvilas. It is also not 1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214 6 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh disputed that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized prior two years of the said incident, so it is an admitted position in this case that deceased’s death is unnatural and she died within the seven years of her marriage. 10. Netram (PW-2) father of the deceased Kanti Bai has stated in his deposition that the accused persons/appellants started harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of cash Rs. 50,000/-, motorcycle in the form of dowry and before the date of incident his daughter/deceased intimated him through telephone that the appellant- Ramvilas subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of the agricultural land, as such, he went to the daughter’s in- laws house where her daughter was lying dead. He admitted his signature in Inquest Memo (Ex. P/2) and Notice (Ex. P/3). In his cross- examination, he admitted this fact that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry made by the accused and in para 8 of his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that neither he lodged the report before the police station nor convened the village meeting regarding the demand of dowry made by the accused. In para 9, he admitted this fact that at the time of preparing inquest memo, he and his wife were present, but he did not state anything to the police against the accused. In para 10, he admitted this fact after preparing the inquest memo, he told to the police in connection with demand of cash Rs. 50,000/-, motorcycle by the accused and he further stated that he cannot give explanation as to why the aforesaid deposition was not taken on record by the police. 11. Vedram (PW-4), uncle of the deceased has stated in his deposition that 7 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh after the marriage, deceased told him that the accused persons/ appellants subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. In his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that there was no demand of dowry made by the accused before him. Further, he admitted this fact that at the time of death of deceased Kanti Bai, police was present, but he did not made any allegation against the accused persons, even at the time of thirteenth- day ritual following a death, 100 to 200 people gathered, however he did not disclose the fact to anyone that her niece/deceased was subjected to torture and there was demand of dowry from the appellants. 12. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Karan Singh (Supra), held in para 17 which reads as under:- 17…...The statement of PW-8 was recorded more than two and half months from the date of the incident. Moreover, he had no personal knowledge whether the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in. Perhaps this is a case of moral conviction. 13. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Charan 8 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh Singh alias Charanjit Singh (Supra), held in para 11, which reads as under:- “ 11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath’s case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: ( i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” as: ( i) 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), or (ii) 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 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.’’ 14. From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of Netram (PW- 2) father of the deceased and Vedram (PW-4) does not prove this fact that the deceased Kanti Bai was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death. Father of the deceased admitted this fact that at the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made by the accused. and he also admitted this fact at the time of preparing inquest memo, 9 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh he and his wife were present, but they did not make any outrageous allegations against the accused. 15. As per Morgue Intimation (Ex. P/11), lodged by the deceased’s husband appellant No. 1/Ramvilas, wherein it has been stated that prior to the date of incident i.e., 15.05.2011, the deceased Kanti Bai had made an outrageous allegation against his character by suspecting him of having a second wife, as such, a heated argument was started between them. On the next day morning i.e., 16.05.2011, when the appellant No. 1/Ramvilas woke up, he found her wife/deceased’s dead body as she hung herself by his loin cloth (lungi) by fixing it to a latch. In Inquest Memo (Ex. P/2), Netram (PW-2) admitted his signature on A to A part, but there is no whisper of any torture by the appellants. 16. Sukhmat Bai (PW-3) has also admitted this fact that no injury was seen by her on the deceased’s body at the time of preparing inquest memo (Ex. P/2). 17. Thus, from close scrutiny of all the witnesses, it is only proved that the death of the deceased Kanti Bai was unnatural, but mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within 07 years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the appellants under Sections 498 (A) & 304 (B) of IPC. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges 19. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the 10 CRA No. 278 of 2013 Ramvilas Sahu and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S. 2023), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL