1 2025:CGHC:15553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1052 of 2021 1 - Shailendra Patel S/o Bharat Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kesharuvadih Police Station Jarhagaon District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Jarhagaon District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Shushobhit Singh, and Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate. For Res/State For Objector : : Mr. Gorelal Uike, Panel Lawyer Mr. Bhupendra, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Seema Singh, Objector Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 02/04/2025 1. The present criminal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2021 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 15/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction U/S Sentence Fine In default of payment of Fine u/S 304-B of Indian Penal Code RI for 10 years ……. ……. U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year Rs. 500/- R.I. for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, are that marriage of Smt Durga Patel (since deceased) was solemnized with appellant Shailendra Patel on 25.06.2019. After marriage, she was started residing in her matrimonial house. On 27.02.2020, she was found dead in her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances and her death was intimated by maternal uncle of the deceased namely Chandresh Patel (PW-02) to the Police and, thereafter, merg intimation (Ex. P/7) was recorded. The inquest of the dead body of the deceased (Ex. P/4) was prepared in presence of the witnesses and dead- body was sent for its post-mortem to District Hospital, Mungeli where Dr. J. P. Kaushik (PW-05) conducted post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased and found following injuries on her body:- “Shiny and reddish brownish and small tinny rashes over left side of face and forehead. Sign of abrasion and contusion over neck present. Total neck circumference of the neck was 32 cm. Contusion over front of neck, left lateral to trachea towards right side oblique pattern right upper to left lower 6 cm. X 3 cm. and some abrasion over trachea 1 cm. X 0.50 cm. and tinny depression at the level of hyoid, thyroid and below thyroid gland. Multiple diffuse contusion below and above the neck and form a circle band over neck above the thyroid gland. 2 cm. width, length is 3 incomplete. Anterior aspect of neck present and right side also present. Pale or discoloration of skin over neck upper part above and at the level of thyroid gland length 18 cm. X 2 cm. from below right ear pinna to run anterior to the left lateral aspect of upper part of neck. Congestion over left side of face and small shiny rashes present but not in right side of face. Dorsiflexed of both foot congested, scratch mark present (multiple) over thigh and medial aspect of thigh is larger than another part of thigh. The injuries are antimortem in nature.” After conducting postmortem, doctor has opined that according to the autopsy finding, death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, which is antimortum in nature and his postmortem report is Ex.P-9. 3. Spot map (Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-15) were prepared by the police whereas spot map (Ex.P-2) was prepared by the Patwari. One cash credit memo of Bagga Enterprises has also been seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P-6). On 31.05.2020, a written complaint was made by Ku. Neeta Patel (PW01) to the Police and after investigation and enquiry, the FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused persons have been arrested on 01.06.2016. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded. 4. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, District Mungeli for the offence under Section 304 (B) read with Section 34 of 4 the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Court for its trial. 5. The trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 304 B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appear against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court has acquitted two accused persons namely- Yogendra Patel and Bharat Patel, however, present appellant- Shailendra Patel has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the same cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in crime in question. There is no demand of dowry and there is no harrassment or cruelty given by the accused persons to the deceased prior to the incident and there is no proximity and nexus between the act of the appellant and death of the deceased to connect the appellant with the crime in question. At 5 the time of inquest of the dead body, maternal uncle of the deceased namely Chandresh (PW-02) was present there but he has not made any complaint at that time and it is only after about three months of the date of incident, Neeta Patel (PW-1), who is sister of the deceased has lodged the written complaint to the police and, thereafter, FIR has been registered against the appellant. He would further submit that prior to the incident no any report has been lodged by the deceased or her family members, therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. He would next submit that learned trial Court has awarded excessive sentence of 10 years for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the IPC and the incident is of the year 2015 whereas minimum sentence of seven years is provided for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC and, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the appellant may be sentenced for the minimum sentence of seven years, as provided in Section 304B of the IPC. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the submission made on behalf of the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Deceased died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and there are antemortom injuries have been found on the body of the deceased for which there is no proper explanation has been given by the appellant. Although, the written complaint has been lodged on 31.10.2020, but the witnesses have explained the reason for delay in making the complaint, as they have already approached to the police but the police has not given any heed to the complaint made by them and then only with the intervention of Superintendent of Police, the report has been lodged and then the FIR has 6 been registered. There are sufficient material available on record to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence, as such, the appeal filed by the appellant have no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant also vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that within eight months of marriage, the deceased died in unnatural circumstance. There are evidence that right from initial days of their marriage, she complained to her maternal uncle and sister that she was being harassed by the appellant and his family members for demand of dowry. They demanded for motorcycle, dowry articles, even the appellant pressurized her to get recorded the land in his name which is lying in the name of her father. He would also submit that two days prior to the date of incident, the deceased came to her maternal uncle's house and informed about the incident and they were about to go to the house of the appellant to convince them, but in the meantime she has died. He would also submit that number of injuries have been found on the body of the deceased, which could not be possible by simple hanging. The incident is occurred at about 4.30am in the morning and the said injuries have not been explained by the appellant as to how the said injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. There is no straitjacket formula of proximity and nexus with the act of the appellant and death of the deceased but it can be gathered by the surrounding circumstance under which the incident has occurred. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and convicted and sentenced the appellant. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the 7 material available on record including record of the trial Court. 12. The death of the deceased within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances is not in dispute. Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-5), who conducted post-mortom of the deceased, has clearly opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of hanging, which is antemortom in nature. While conducting the postmortem, the doctor has also noticed various injuries on her body. The opinion given by the doctor with respect to the mode and nature of the death could not be rebutted by the defence that the deceased died due to some other reason and not by hanging. 13. From the perusal the postmortem report (Ex. P/9) of the deceased, it appears that finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased is in unnatural circumstance, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 14. So far as the allegation of dowry death is concerned, I again examined the evidence of witnesses. 15. Neeta Patel (PW-1), who is sister of deceased – Durga Patel, has stated in her evidence that her sister has got married with appellant on 25th June, 2019. After the marriage, when her sister came to her house, she complained that her husband and in-laws are harrassing her for demand of dowry and beating her. They demanded motorcycle and asked them to get the name transferred in favour of husband, which was the property of her father. Her parents have died much before her marriage and their nurture was being done by their maternal grandfather and maternal uncle. 2-3 days before the date of incident, her sister came to her house and informed about 8 the incident and when they informed the same to their maternal grand-father and maternal uncle, they stated that after 1- 2 days, they will go to the house of the deceased and get them convinced, thereafter, on 27.02.2020, they received information about the death of deceased and when they went to her matrimonial house, they saw her dead body and injuries on her body, thereafter, her maternal uncle lodged a report in Police Station – Jarhagaon. In cross-examination, though she stated that prior to the date of incident, they have not lodged any report against the appellant and had also not made complaint to anyone, but she stuck on her evidence that, the deceased informed them about the harrassment meted out by the appellant and demand of dowry. She also stated that on 24.02.2020, she returned back to her husband. She also stated that when police persons were not doing anything, they lodged written complaint. 16. Chandresh (PW-2), who is maternal uncle of the deceased, has stated that whenever his niece came to his house, she disclosed about the dowry demand made by the appellant and harrassment to her by her in-laws. She disclosed about the incident to her younger sister, who in turn, disclosed the same to them. Two day prior to the date of incident, her younger niece disclosed about the incident to him and after about 2 days, he received information about 4.30 AM in the morning about the incident. When they went to the house of deceased, they saw dead body of the deceased and injuries on her dead body. After her death, he made complaint to the police for taking action against them. He lodged merg intimation to the police, which is Ex.P- 7. In his cross-examination, he too has stated that after her marriage, he visited her house about 2-3 times. He denied that at the time of incident, she was feeling some ailment and vomiting. He voluntarily stated that her 9 younger niece has informed that she was carrying pregnancy of about 2-3 months. At the time of recording of merg intimation, he disclosed about the harrassment by the appellant to the deceased, but the police has not get it recorded. When the police has not lodged any report, theb they approached before the higher police authorities, although, he too has stated that they have not called any community meeting to resolve the dispute, but that itself is not sufficient to discard his evidence completely. 17. Bhojwa Ram (PW-3) is villager, who has stated in his evidence that after about 2 months of her marriage, when she came to her maternal uncle's house and he met with her, she touches his feet and started weeping and on being asked, she disclosed that her husband is used to beat her and asked her to get the land recorded in his name, which was of his father's property and also demanded motorcycle from her. On 24.2.2020, when she came to her maternal uncle's house, she again reiterated the same demand made by the appellant and then on 27.02.2020, he came to know that deceased died, he too accompanied with Chandresh (PW-2) to police station for lodging of the report and when the police did not take any action, they approached to the Superintendent of Police and then FIR has been registered against the appellant. Nothing could be extracted from the evidence of this witness by the defence that he has not met with the deceased, who has not made any complaint to him. 18. From the evidence of Dr. J.P. Koushik (PW-5), who conducted postmortem of the deceased, has found the number of antimortem injuries on the body of deceased and opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. Though, he admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries found on the body of deceased would have been caused by saree produced in the 10 case. But this part of his evidence is completely foreign to whatever he found during postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. One cannot presume that by saree multiple contusions and abrasions would have been caused on the body of the deceased but the fact remains that numerous injuries have been found on the body of the deceased, which are anti mortem in nature. 19. From all these evidence, it cannot be said that deceased was un-happy from the marriage with the appellant and thereby under the extreme pressure or depression, she committed suicide, rather from the evidence, it comes that she was happily residing with the appellant (her husband) and she conceived pregnancy for about 2-3 months. From the evidence of Neeta Patel (P -1), it comes that just 2-3 days back from the date of incident, when the deceased came to her maternal uncle's house, she disclosed about the harassment meted out by the appellant to her and when the same was informed to her maternal uncle, they asked her that within 2-3 days, they will go there and convinced her in-laws and during that period, deceased died. Unexplained injuries found on the body of the deceased also gives reason to believe that deceased was being harrassed by the appellant. The manner and time of incident and the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased would directly connect the appellant with the offence in question. Though, there is no previous complaint, but within 2-3 days, when she made complaint to her sister, she died and injuries have been found on her body, which can be said that there was close proximity of the harrassment and death of the deceased. 20. From the evidence available on record, it appears that there are sufficient material brought by the prosecution to uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and thereby the conviction of the appellant is 11 hereby affirmed. 21. With regard to the sentence part of the impugned judgment, while dealing with the said question in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to 12 quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.' 22. The offence of Section 304 (B) of the IPC provided minimum sentence of seven years. The appellant is presently appears to be aged about 30 years. The alleged incident is of the year 2020, since then he is in jail, therefore, ends of justice would meet if sentence imposed upon the appellant is to be reduced for the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the IPC i.e. 7 years. 23. Considering the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case as well as aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra), while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the IPC, his sentence is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI of 7 years. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby affirmed. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 24. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 31.5.2020, he is entitled for set off of his undergone period during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal. He shall serve the jail sentence, as modified by this Court. 25. With the aforesaid alteration / modification, the appeal is party allowed. 26. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this order for compliance and needful. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge amita Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.29 09:52:49 +0530