1 2025:CGHC:33616-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.77 of 2016 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Janjgir Champa, (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ghasiyaram Patel S/o Mohitram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jajang, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, (CG) 2 - Panchuram Patel S/o Kushvaram Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Jajang, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, (CG) 3 - Panchkunwar W/o Panchuram Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Jajang, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.GA For Respondents : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 17/07/2025 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 08.03.2016 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.24/2015, whereby, the respondents have been SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.07.18 10:54:56 +0530 2 acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/34 and in, alternatively under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 06.05.2014, the marriage of the deceased, namely, Pitar Bai was solemnized with Respondent No.1-Ghasiyaram Patel, the resident of Village Jajang, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa and within a period of 3 & ½ months, she died on 01.09.2014 on account of burn injuries occurred on 31.08.2014 at 8 PM in the District Hospital, Janjgir. On account of her death, the merg intimation (Ex.P-7) was lodged by one Ramji, the Wardboy of the said hospital and the matter was thereafter investigated and in the meantime, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the deceased’s brother, namely, Bajrang Patel (PW-1) before the Police Station Sakti on 06.09.2014, alleging therein that after one week of the marriage of his sister, she was harassed and maltreated by the respondents on account of demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is alleged further by him that when he enquired from his sister as to how she burnt, it was then informed him that her husband- Ghasiyaram Patel, Uncle-in-law-Panchuram Patel and Aunt-in-law- Panchkunwar (Chapalhin Bai) have poured kerosene oil and ablazed her and during the course of treatment, she died in the night around 2 A.M. An FIR (Ex.P-11) was lodged on 26.09.2014 after completing the merg enquiry against her husband-Ghasiyaram Patel (Respondent No.1), Uncle-in-law-Panchuram Patel (Respondent No.2) and Aunt-in- law-Panchkunwar (Chapalhin Bai) (Respondent No.3) with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Inquest of the deadbody was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and was 3 sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-11), who vide her report (EX.P-10) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia occurred as a result of burn and its complications and, after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti against the respondents with regard to the offences mentioned herein-above and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charges have been framed against the Respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and, in alternatively, under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, in connection with Crime No.362/14 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 15 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents, while 6 witnesses were examined and 3 documents were exhibited by the respondents in their defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the deceased was harassed and maltreated soon before her death by the respondents on account of demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to 4 the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the deceased’s brother, namely, Bajrang Patel (PW-1) and Manohar Patel (PW-4), her sister-in- laws’, namely, Dashoda Bai (PW-3) and Laxmin Bai (PW-6) and the mother of her, namely, Radha Bai (PW-2), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, while referring to the statements of the relatives of the deceased, submits that the allegations regarding demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- was, however, not established by them and that by referring to the agreement (Ex.D-1) executed on 23.05.2014 by the deceased’s brother, namely, Manohar and the information given by the concerned Police regarding non-cognizable offence with regard to the complaint made by the Respondent No.1, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials, has not erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime. 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 Respondent No.1- Ghasiyaram Patel, husband of the deceased, uncle-in-law-Panchuram Patel and aunt-in-law-Panchkunwar (Chapalhin Bai) have been charge- sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 31/08/2014, when the deceased died on account of burn injuries on the 5 next day early in the morning around 2 A.M. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the Respondent No.1 on 06.05.2014 and immediately after few days, she was harassed and maltreated by the respondents on account of demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and that by pouring kerosene oil, ablazed her. 9) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the brother of the deceased, namely, Bajrang Patel, who lodged the written report (Ex.P-1) on 06.09.2014, was examined as PW-1, and it appears from his testimony that after a week of the solemnization of the marriage of his sister, namely, Pitar Bai, she was harassed and maltreated by the respondents on account of demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-. He deposed further that on account of the alleged demand, the respondents have poured the kerosene oil and ablazed her and she was admitted into the Community Health Center, Sakti, where brother-in-law, namely, Netram of his brother-Manohar, was co- incidentally present in the said hospital for the treatment of his friend and after sometime, the deceased came along with her husband for her treatment and then, he (Netram) informed regarding the admission of his sister and after receiving the said information, his brother- Manohar Patel went to the hospital and when she was shifted from the Community Health Center, Sakti to the District Hospital, Janjgir, he was informed by her that she was burnt by the respondents on account of the alleged demand. It is to be noted here that when he lodged the alleged report (Ex.P-1), it was stated by him that he received the information from his sister when he asked from her, that she was burnt by the respondents while pouring kerosene oil upon her, however, the 6 said fact was not revealed from his Court statement, as the alleged information was received by him from his brother–Manohar Patel and not from his sister. It reveals further from his testimony that his uncle- Panchuram Patel and his wife–Panchkunwar (Chapalhin Bai) are living separately from the Respondent No.1-Ghasiyaram Patel. 10) Radha Bai (PW-2) was the mother of the deceased and, it was stated by her that 15 days after the solemnization of marriage of her daughter, she was harassed and maltreated by her in-laws on account of demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and, deposed further that when her daughter was shifted from Community Health Center, Sakti to the District Hospital, Janjgir, she informed her son- Manohar Patel that she was burnt by the respondents, while pouring kerosene oil upon her. 11) Dashoda Bai (PW-3) is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased, who deposed that, 15 days after the solemnization of marriage of the deceased, she informed that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband, uncle-in-law and aunt-in-law on account of demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and it was stated further that she was informed by her brother-in-law- Manohar Patel that when she was shifted to the District Hospital, Janjgir, the deceased informed him that she was burnt by her in-laws, while pouring kerosene oil upon her. Similar is the statement of Laxmin Bai, the another sister-in-law of the deceased, who was examined as PW-6. 12) Manohar Patel (PW-4), the brother of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that after about 15 days of the marriage of his sister, she was maltreated and assaulted by her in-laws on account of demand of 7 motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and deposed further that when she was in the hospital at Community Health Center, Sakti, it was informed by her that she was burnt by her in-laws by pouring kerosene oil upon her. 13) Netram (PW-5), who intimated regarding the admission of the deceased at Community Health Center, Sakti, has stated that when he was in the said hospital for treatment of his friend, namely, Sarwan Yadav, the deceased, after sometime, came along with her husband in a burnt condition and then, he informed his brother-in-law, namely, Bajrang Patel regarding admission of his sister on telephone, which was received by his brother– Manohar Patel and thereafter, he (Manohar Patel) came to the hospital, where the deceased informed him regarding the aforesaid incident to her said brother. 14) From perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that all the close relatives of the deceased have stated that because of the demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-, she was harassed and maltreated by the respondents. It is, however, to be seen at this juncture that the alleged report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the deceased’s brother, namely, Bajrang Patel before the Police Station, Sakti on 06.09.2014, wherein, it was stated by him that he received the alleged information from his sister (the deceased) in the hospital that she was burnt by her husband–Ghasiyaram Patel, uncle-in-law-Panchuram Patel and aunt-in-law-Panchkunwar (Chapalhin Bai), though, the said fact was not revealed from his statement, when he was examined before the Court. There is, thus, disparity in the statement of theirs. 8 15) Pertinently to be noted here further that an agreement (Ex.D-1) was executed by the brother of the deceased, namely, Manohar Patel on 23.05.2014 and, a bare perusal of the said document would show that since his sister, the deceased, was not happy in her in-law’s house and has beaten her own body and since on various occasions, she has done various objectionable activities, therefore, he took her back to the parental house for 8 days. The said document was executed after about 17 days from the solemnization of her marriage, but has not stated anywhere in the alleged agreement (Ex.D-1) that his sister was assaulted or maltreated by the respondents on account of the alleged demand. The brother of the deceased, who executed the alleged agreement, has very specifically admitted his signature mentioned therein, when he was confronted with it and, that apart, the attesting witness of it, namely, Dhananjay Kumar Patel (DW-1) has proved the same as well. The allegations as made by the close relatives of the deceased that she was harassed and maltreated on account of the alleged demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-, thus, appears to be a concocted versions of theirs. 16) Moreover, about two months prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, a report was lodged by the Respondent No.1-Ghasiyaram Patel, husband of the deceased, on 27.06.2014 before the Police Station-Sakti, stating therein that his wife-Pitar Bai doesn’t want to live with him and has left the house on the said date, i.e.27.06.2014 without intimating to anyone and when he went to receive her, she denied to accompany him and, instead threatened to implicate him in a dowry case. It appears further that after receiving the said report/complaint, the concerned Police Station informed him that the alleged complaint is 9 non-cognizable and the information to this effect was accordingly furnished vide Ex.D-2 under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. 17) In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that on account of alleged demand of motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-, the deceased was harassed and maltreated by the respondents and/or, have committed the murder of her while pouring the kerosene oil and, the trial Court, after taking note of the materials available on record, as observed herein-above, has not committed any illegality in acquitting them 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 S DSD/- /-d/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane