1 2025:CGHC:39739-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 626 of 2019 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjigir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Dilip Kumar S/o Harishankar Aged About 27 Years 2. Harishankar S/o Daulat Ram Pankaj, aged about 70 years, 3. Pradeep Kumar S/o Harishankar, Aged about 25 years, 4. Sik Bai W/o Harishankar Pankaj, Aged about 65 years, 5. Sanjay Kumar W/o Harishankar Pankaj, aged about 35 years, All are R/o Village Kotiya, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri Chandra Kumar, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 08/08/2025 1) Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocity), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.227/2014, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of IPC and, in alternatively, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.08 17:49:10 +0530 2 a petition being CRMP No.1894 of 2019 was filed seeking leave to appeal and, vide order dated 20.08.2019, leave to appeal was granted only against the Respondent No.1-Dilip Kumar, who is the husband of the deceased, namely, Archana. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as under :- “3. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that, at least, ingredients of offence under Section 498A are available against husband Dilip Kumar, therefore, this application for leave to appeal is allowed only against respondent No.1 Dilip Kumar.” 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Archana was solemnized with the Respondent No.1-Dilip Kumar on 14.04.2012 at Village Kotiya, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, who committed suicide by hanging herself on 05.07.2014 after two years and three months of the solemnization of her marriage. On account of her sad demise, a merg intimation (Ex.P-7) was lodged by her husband-Dilip Kumar on 05.07.2014 before the Police Station Nawagarh and based upon which, an enquiry was conducted, wherein, it was revealed that she was harassed and maltreated, because she has come with inadequate dowry as compared to her sister-in-law (Jethani), wife of her brother-in-law, namely, Pradeep Kumar, and also because, she was not giving birth to a child and, on account of the alleged allegations, her husband-Dilip Kumar, father-in-law-Harishankar, mother-in-law-Sik Bai and her brother-in-laws, namely, Pradeep 3 Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B and, in alternatively, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and, by virtue of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and thereafter, vide order dated 20.08.2019, this Court has granted leave to prefer an appeal only against the husband of the deceased, namely Dilip Kumar, the Respondent No.1 herein. 3) According to the prosecution, the deceased- Archana was harassed and maltreated by her in-laws as she had come with inadequate dowry as compare to her sister-in-law (Jethani), the wife of her brother-in-law, namely, Pradeep Kumar and also on the ground that she was not giving birth to a child. 4) Although, it was alleged as such, but a bare perusal of the statement of her brother, namely, Bhupendra Kumar (PW-1), it appears that contrary to the alleged allegation, it was stated by him that she was maltreated and harassed because she had not come with a fridge and the payment has not been made at the time of reception. It appears further from his testimony that since she was not giving birth to a child, therefore, her husband used to torture her, but prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, no report to this effect was lodged by him, as revealed from paragraphs 8 and 9 of his testimony. His statement is, even otherwise, not found to be corroborated by Sohan Das (PW-2), the uncle of the deceased, as no demand, like a fridge, was stated by him and, rather she was 4 found to be living a happy life after her marriage. Although, it was stated by him that he was informed by his niece, the deceased, on phone that she was assaulted by her in-laws because of demand of dowry, but the alleged of his version is, however, not found to be revealed from his statement (Ex.D-2) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5) Kavita Mekhle (PW-3) is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased, and it appears from her testimony that she was informed by the deceased that her husband used to got annoyed on trivial issues and, it reveals further from her testimony that she was assaulted by her husband after consuming liquor, but she has, however, not stated that she was harassed and maltreated by him, on account of the demand of dowry or because she had not given birth to a child. 6) It, thus, appears from perusal of the aforesaid testimonies of the relatives of the deceased that in fact, they have stated contrary to the alleged allegations. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on their testimonies in order to implicate the Respondent No.1-Dilip Kumar for the commission of the alleged crime. Even at the time of inquest being made by the Naib Tahsildar, namely, Shukla Singh Valke (PW-9), no complaint as such was lodged, though her relatives were present. 7) It appears further from the testimony of Dr. Anvita Dhruw (PW-5), who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, that she died, because of committing suicide and, has not found any kind of injuries on her body during the course of autopsy. Besides, none of the witnesses 5 have stated anywhere that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband-Respondent No.1 on account of demand of dowry. In view thereof, it cannot be said that she has committed suicide, because, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and the trial Court, after taking note of those materials, as observed herein- above, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent-Dilip Kumar from the commission of the alleged crime or even, he could be held guilty under Section 498-A of IPC. 8) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- SD (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane