1 2025:CGHC:46132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 651 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur, - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus Rambhajan Prajapati S/o Ramkishun, Aged About 29 Years, Occupation Kumhar, R/o Village Balangi, Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 10/09/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.97/2014, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.09.11 17:32:12 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of the deceased Lalita Prajapati was solemnized with the respondent/accused 10-11 years ago prior to the date of incident i.e. 05.10.2013. Out of their relations three children were born and one child was died and two are alive. On 05.10.2013, deceased Lalita committed suicide by hanging by using rope at her matrimonial house which is situated at Village Balangi, Kumhar Para. Intimation in this regard was given by elder brother of the accused namely, Umesh Kumar (PW- 3) at Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur, wherein, it is stated by PW-3 that on the date of incident at about 8 am when he was going to Village Kogvar, he has seen that deceased Lalita is feeding to her children and at that time his brother i.e. respondent/accused had gone for doing work of mason at Village Bevadi. It is further stated that when complainant Umesh Kumar returned to home at about 11:30 am, he heard hue and cry of children of respondent/accused. Thereafter, his mother Jiramat Bai brought the children and reached to the house of deceased wherein she found that door was locked from inside, so she called her neighour Prangun (PW-2). Thereafter, PW-2 has jumped inside the house of the deceased from wall and found that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging. 3. Subsequently, death Inquest report was prepared by giving notice Ex.P-2 to the witnesses present on the spot. Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Crime details form and 3 sketch map of the spot was prepared vide Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, respectively. Patwari Munna Singh (PW-11) has prepared Nazri Naksha and Panchanma vide Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7, respectively. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem by Dr. R. B. Prajapati (PW-13), who has prepared the medical report Ex.P-14A, opining the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging. The rope used by the deceased was seized vide property seizure memo Ex.P-15. Thereafter, on the basis of Merg enquiry, FIR has been registered on 01.06.2014 against the respondent/accused vide Ex.P-16. 4. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents viz Ex.P-1 to P-19. 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent/accused stated that he has been falsely implicated. However, he did not adduce any defence witness. 7. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective as father of the deceased, namely, Teerath Prasad (PW-4) 4 categorically deposed that accused was harassing the deceased for dowry and pressurizing the deceased to bring her sister to his home to make illicit relation with her and always threatening the deceased to marry with another woman. In such circumstances, present appeal may be allowed and the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Father of the deceased, namely Teerath Prasad (PW-4) in his evidence deposed that marriage of his daughter and accused was solemnized 10-11 years ago. He has further deposed that after marriage the respondent/accused started harassing the deceased by threatening her to marry with another woman and asked the deceased to bring her sister and that appellant has made demand of motorcycle and Rs.10,000/-. He further deposed that when the deceased came to her parental house, she has informed about such behavior of the respondent/accused. Further, three days prior to the incident the deceased talked with him over telephone and asked to bring her to parental house on the occasion of Pitra Paksh, then he (PW-4) told her that he would come at the time of Durga Puja festival. However, this witness specifically stated that at that time the deceased has not stated anything against the accused. PW-4 has further deposed that Umesh Prajapati, brother of the accused, has informed him that deceased has committed 5 suicide and thereafter he reached to Village Balangi. He has also stated that on the next day of incident, he has reported about such incident to the Police Station Balangi. However, during trial the police has not filed such report which alleged to have been lodged at Police Station Balangi. 11. Kishor Kewant (PW-14), who was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Raghunathnagar at the relevant time, has lodged the FIR (Ex.P-16) on the basis of Merg enquiry and arrested the accused on 01.06.2014. In his evidence he has stated about other investigation procedure conducted at the relevant time. Scanning of evidence of this witness would show that Investigating Officer himself has not found any material evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry or that appellant was pressurizing her for making illicit relationship with her sister. Moreover, the incident occurred on 05.10.2013 and FIR has been lodged after more than seven months i.e. on 01.06.2014. It also appears that the story of allegation against the accused has been developed after the incident. 12. The other witnesses, namely Mewalal (PW-1), brother of the deceased, Parvati (PW-7) mother of the deceased and Kiran (PW-8) sister of the deceased have declared hostile. One of the allegations levelled against the appellant was that he has asked the deceased to bring her sister for illicit relationship. However, sister of the deceased Kiran (PW-8) categorically deposed that accused and 6 deceased were living happily and accused has never raised any demand of dowry and in Para 2 she has categorically stated that appellant's behavior was good towards her. Further, similar statement has been given by mother of the deceased, namely, Parvati (PW-7). She has categorically denied that the accused has made demand of motorcycle and also denied that he has demanded Rs.10,000/-. This witness has also denied the fact regarding harassment meted out to the deceased and that the appellant has threatened the deceased for second marriage and to keep her sister in his house. 13. Furthermore, brother of the deceased, namely, Mewalal (PW-1) has stated that the appellant has not stated anything about his sister with him and he has never demanded anything and subsequently declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he has categorically admitted the fact that the accused has never committed Maar-peet with the deceased. He has also admitted the fact that his sister (deceased) got angry on trivial issues. 14. Analysis of the aforesaid evidence of close relatives of the deceased would show that no such offence has been committed by the respondent/accused and that the deceased was highly sensitive in nature. Further, in the present case, the necessary ingredients to establish the abetment of suicide under Section 306 are lacking/missing and there must be a proximate and live/close link 7 present between such abetment and the consequent suicide, to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. 15. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 16. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh Vs. State of Kerala [(2006) 10 SCC 617], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his 8 innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 17. Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another V s. State of Uttrakhand [2025 INSC 11 4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 9 18. 9 18. In view of the aforesaid principles and considering the evidence as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that cruelty has been extended by the respondent/accused in any manner to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and the impugned judgment of acquittal is just and proper and same does not call for any interference. 19. In the result, the Appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay