1 2025:CGHC:18999-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.229 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ajay Singh S/o Sureshwar Prasad Singh Aged 43 Years Occupation Private Civil Engineer, R/o Village Katinda, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) 2 - Sureshwar Prasad Singh S/o Late Jagdip Aged 78 Years Occupation Agriculture and Retired C. E. O. R/o Village Katinda, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, (CG) 3 - Smt. Kiran Singh W/o Shri Anil Kumar Singh Aged About 62 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Bhatthi Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri V. K. Pandey, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 28/04/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 legality and propriety of the judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.148/99, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of respondent No.1, namely, Ajay Singh was solemnized with the deceased, namely, Rubi Singh sometimes in the year 1996, who died on 01.12.1998, after consuming poison. It is alleged by the prosecution that immediately after solemnization of her marriage, she was maltreated and harassed by her husband-Ajay Singh, her father-in-law-Sureshwar Prasad Singh, sister-in-law-Smt. Kiran Singh and her mother-in-law-Smt. Dhanwanti Devi (who died during the trial) and based upon the alleged allegations, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 3) It appears that on account of the alleged incident, occurred on 01.12.1998, a written report (Ex.P-22) was lodged by the father of the deceased on 03.12.1998 before the Police Station Lakhanpur, wherein it has been alleged that his daughter was being assaulted as she came with inadequate means and when he has seen the dead body of his daughter, he found injuries on it. He (Kameshwar Prasad) was examined as PW-8, wherein it has been alleged that his daughter was being maltreated and harassed by them on 3 account of demand of Television and Fridge, which was, however, not mentioned in his written report (Ex.P-22), lodged on 03.12.1998. 4) Rakesh Kumar (PW-9), who was the cousin of the deceased, has, however, stated that apart from demand of Television and Fridge, Silver Plate was also demanded. Mithlesh Kumar, (PW-10) was the uncle of the deceased and according to him, he was informed by the deceased that she was assaulted by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of Fridge, Colour Television and Cooler. There is, thus, disparity in their statements regarding the alleged demand. 5) It is to be seen further, as reflected from the testimony of the father (PW-8) of the deceased, that he has seen injuries on the dead body of his daughter, but Dr. R.N. Gupta (PW-5), who conducted the autopsy of her dead body, has, however, in his report (Ex.P-9), not found any external injuries. The allegations of the father of the deceased, who lodged the written report, thus, appears to be a false one. 6) That apart, (Ex.P-12) is the letter, alleged to have been, written by the deceased on 18.07.1998 to her father where it was alleged that because of demand of Television and Fridge, she was assaulted and maltreated by her husband and in-laws. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that the alleged letter (Ex.P-12) was written by the deceased to her father, but, the said letter was, however, found to be recovered from the father-in-law of the deceased vide Ex.P-11, where deceased’s father was shown to be the attesting witness. No explaination has been led by the prosecution as to how it has been 4 recovered from the father-in-law of the deceased when it was written by the deceased to her father and why her father was shown to be one of the attesting witness of it. That apart, the uncle of the deceased, namely, Mithlesh Kumar (PW-10), who was acquainted with her handwriting, has, however, upon reading the said letter (Ex.P-12), failed to state at para 16 of his testimony that whether it was written by the deceased or not. Moreover, the Handwriting Expert, namely, M. R. Deshpandey (DW-1), while comparing the alleged letter (Ex.P-12) with that of a letter (Ex.D-9), written by her sister-Tuni to her brother-in-law (Jija)-Ajay Singh, opined that both these letters have been written by one and the same person. In view of such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the alleged letter (Ex.P-12) was written by the deceased to her father, as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the allegations made, as such, in the said letter (Ex.P-12) that the deceased was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws cannot be relied upon. 7) Besides, a bare perusal of the letters (Ex.D-4 and D-5) written by the deceased to her sister-in-law, namely, Gudiya, would show that every thing is fine at her in-law’s house and likewise, the same thing was also reflected from her another letter (Ex.D-9), which was written by her to another sister-in-law, namely, Manju. In her said letters, she has not raised any allegations of demand of dowry, as alleged by her father (PW-8). Even, if it is presumed that the alleged letter (Ex.P-12) was written by the deceased on 18.07.1998 to her father that she was maltreated and harassed by her husband and in- 5 laws, but, even upon receiving the said information, the father of the deceased had kept silent and not lodged any report that she was harassed as such, and even in his written report (Ex.P-22) lodged before the Police Station Lakhanpur, no allegations, as such, were made. The allegations as made by him, therefore, cannot be relied upon in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 8) In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court, after analyzing the alleged documents, mentioned here-in-above, vis-a-vis the statements of her relatives, namely, father-Kameshwar Prasad (PW- 8), uncle-Mithlesh Kumar (PW-10) and cousin-Rakesh Kumar (PW- 9), 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. 9) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane