1 2025:CGHC:17858-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.129 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Pawan Kumar S/o Ramcharan Nishad, Aged About 29 Years 2- Ramcharan S/o Puran Lal Nishad, Aged About 56 Years 3 - Punia Bai W/o Ramcharan Nishad, Aged About 51 Years All R/o Ward No. 5 Shanti Nagar Rajnandgaon, Police Station and District- Rajnandgaon,Chhattisgarh, 4 - Tameshwar Lal Nishad S/o Ramcharan Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Sector-7 Quarter No. 94, M.T.I. Hostel Balco Township, Korba, P.S.- Balco, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.G.A. For Respondent(s) : Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 21/04/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22/02/2013, passed by SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.64/2011, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and in addition, for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that the marriage of the deceased-Smt. Kiran Bai was solemnized with respondent no.1- Pawan Kumar on 09.06.2009 and, after the solemnization of the marriage, she started living with her in-laws, but was harassed by them on account of illegal demand of motorcycle, owing to which, she committed suicide by hanging herself on 05.04.2011 and thereafter, she was immediately taken to the District Hospital at Rajnandgaon, where she was declared brought dead. On account of the alleged incident, an information was sent by the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, based on which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-13 by the Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon and thereafter, inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-4 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. V. P. Maheshwar (PW- 14), who in turn, has submitted his report (Ex.P-12) while opining the cause of death to be asphyxia, which occurred due to hanging. It appears further that a written report (Ex.P-9) was lodged by the father of the deceased on 10.04.2011 before the Police Station Chikhli, District Rajnandgaon and based upon the merg enquiry, an FIR was registered vide Ex.P-14 on 15.04.2011 against the respondents for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.157/2011 and after completing the usual investigation, the concerned Investigating 3 Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC in connection with Crime No.157/2011 and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, who in turn, has framed the charges against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and in addition, under Section 302/34 IPC and, the charges so framed, were 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 18 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents, while one witness 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 respondents are not authors of the alleged crime as the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the alleged demand of motorcycle was made by him which compelled the deceased-Smt. Kiran Bai to take an extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the 4 authors of the alleged crime, are apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the father-Shiv Kumar (PW- 7), mother-Smt. Phulbasan Bai (PW-8) and brother-Kamlesh Kumar (PW-9) of the deceased-Smt. Kiran Bai, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged offence has been registered against the respondents with regard to the offence committed on 05.04.2011, when the deceased Smt. Kiran Bai has committed suicide by hanging herself, as she was subjected to cruelty on account of illegal demand of motorcycle by the respondents and, based upon the alleged allegations, the respondents were charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and in addition, under Section 302/34 of IPC. 9) Since the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 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 5 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 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.” 6 10) 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. 11) 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 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 respondents, 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 respondents was wilful, but it has to be established further the degree or intensity of such conduct, which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. 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 would be incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to 7 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 respondents could be held guilty with regard to the offence mentioned therein. 12) While keeping in view the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. 13) Shiv Kumar (PW-7) was the father of the deceased-Kiran Bai and it was stated by him that in the morning of the date of incident, he received telephonic information from the respondent-Ramcharan that his daughter is unconscious and thereafter, his son-in-law- Pawan Kumar has informed him over telephone that his daughter has died by hanging herself. He deposed further, at para-4, that his daughter-Kiran informed him 3 to 4 months after her marriage that, she was being harassed and maltreated by her in-laws on account of demand of motorcycle. He states further at para-16 that prior to sad demise of her daughter, he has not lodged any report. It is stated further by him that when he was interrogated by the police, he informed that his daughter was being harassed 2 to 3 months after her marriage on account of demand of motorcycle, but unable to state why the said fact was not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 14) Mother of the deceased-Kiran Bai, namely, Smt. Phulbasan Bai was examined as PW-8 and she has also stated that her son-in-law was demanding the motorcycle and has admitted the fact at para-5 that 8 even prior to the marriage of her daughter, the motorcycle was already available with her husband. 15) Brother of the deceased-Kiran Bai, namely, Kamlesh Kumar was examined as PW-9 and, according to him, he was informed by his father that his sister was being maltreated by her in-laws on account of demand of motorcycle and, states further that the said fact was informed by his deceased sister also. 16) Although, it was stated by them as such that the alleged demand of motorcycle was made by the respondents, the in-laws of the deceased-Kiran Bai, but, when written report (Ex.P-9) was lodged by her father-Shiv Kumar on 10.04.2011, it was, however, not mentioned anywhere that she was maltreated on account of demand of motorcycle. It, however, appears from perusal of the First Information Report (Ex.P-14) that the deceased-Kiran Bai was harassed and maltreated by her in-laws on account of demand of motorcycle, but, the said fact was not revealed, either in the said written report (Ex.P-9) lodged by her father on 10.04.2011, or even at the time of inquest of the dead body. That apart, the alleged report (Ex.P-9) was found to be lodged only five days after the occurrence of the alleged incident and no proper explanation to this effect has been offered by the prosecution as to why the said report has been lodged after passing of such a considerable period of five days. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the statement of the parents of the deceased, that prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident held on 05.04.2011, no report as such regarding the demand of 9 motorcycle was made by them and the alleged allegations have been levelled only after the occurrence of the said incident and that too, after passing of the five days of the incident. 17) It is to be seen further that the suicidal note (Ex.P-17-B) was written by the deceased-Kiran Bai, while addressing her husband-Pawan Kumar and a bare perusal of the entire of her statement would reveal the fact that she had taken the alleged extreme step of suicide on her own without raising any allegations, as was alleged by her parents and even, as reflected from the written report (Ex.P- 9) lodged by the father of the deceased that, a day before the commission of the alleged incident, she was happy and was coming to attend the marriage. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of the alleged demand of motorcycle which compelled her to commit suicide by hanging herself. In view thereof, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 18) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane