1 CRA No. 109 of 2016 2025:CGHC:37320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 109 of 2016 Mohd. Rais Khan S/o Late Abdul Gabbar Aged About 28 Years R/o Behind Mova Masjid, Mova, Police Station Pandri, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Fouzia Mriza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30/07/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.04 18:51:11 +0530 2 CRA No. 109 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 131/ 2015 by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304 B of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer additional RI for six months 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Rubeena and marriage between the appellant and Rubeena was solemnized on 09/10/2014. Further case of the prosecution is that on the information given by Mohd. Riyaz at Police Station Pendri, that his wife deceased Rubeena had died by hanging herself in her room on 27.03.2015, merg intimation was registered. Panchnama and spot map was prepared, thereafter dead body was sent for postmortem. It is alleged that the appellant harassed Rubeena/deceased by demanding dowry, as a result of which, the Deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. After due investigation, the appellant was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3 CRA No. 109 of 2016 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.01.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no demand of dowry was made by the appellant. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to the effect that just before the death of deceased, she was harassed in any way by the appellant for dowry. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are in uniformity, though the fact of dowry harassment, still not established because no report/complaint was made regarding dowry harassment prior to the incident. He further submits that the allegation with regard to abortion being done has not been proved by any evidence. He also submits that the deceased used to reside separately with the appellant thus the demand of dowry by the in-laws is not sustainable. She further relies on the judgment of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in (2023) 3 S.C.R. 511. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4 CRA No. 109 of 2016 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in a room. Further from the opinion of the doctor, it is apparent that the Deceased died on account of asphyxia due to hanging. 10. PW-1 mother of the deceased stated in her examination-in-chief that when her daughter/ deceased came to her house after marriage she told that her in-laws used to harass her by saying that she has brought less dowry. She also stated that her sister-in-law also used to harass her on petty things and abused and quarreled with her. She stated that husband of the deceased and sister-in-law does not want her daughter to have child and made her abort the child by giving her pills. She further stated that the deceased stated her that her husband used to tell her that he has became a debtor and harass her to bring money from her parents home. In her cross- examination, she stated that there is no custom of dowry in their society neither the appellant demanded dowry at the time of marriage. She further stated that her third daughter had also died by committing suicide. She admitted that the deceased used to go to her sister’s house who lives near by frequently. 5 CRA No. 109 of 2016 11. PW-2 sister of deceased stated in her examination-in-chief that when her sister (deceased) came to her maternal home, she used to tell that her in-laws used to harass her for dowry and used to ask her to bring LCD T.V. She also stated that husband of the deceased used to tell her that he was in too much debt of money and asked her to bring money from her maternal home to pay off the debt. She further stated that sister-in-law of the deceased also used to harass her and used to taunt her. She also stated that her sister (deceased) was pregnant and her in-laws forcefully aborted her. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the demand of LCD TV was not made before her. She also stated that she has no idea that whether the deceased used to like her husband or not as she was 12th pass but the accused was only 3rd pass. She further stated that it is wrong to say that deceased had a love affair with her brother-in-law (jija). 12. PW-3 sister of the deceased, who was living nearby the Deceased, stated in her examination-in-chief stated that on 27th March when she gone to house of the deceased she saw that her sister has hanged herself and committed suicide. She further stated that her husband/ appellant used to harass her for bringing dowry. She in her cross- examination stated that her children used to go to her sister’s house (deceased) and also used to stay their. This witness has categorically admitted that only once she had saw both the appellant and the Deceased were quarreling and all other time, she found them living peacefully. She further stated that on the date 6 CRA No. 109 of 2016 of the incident when she reached to the spot, the door was locked from inside and when it was opened, she saw that the deceased was hanging. She also stated that the accused used to live with her brother who already has LCD TV at home. Further, the Deceased used to cook food on gas stove. She also stated that when she used to visit her sister’s house she never told her that her in-laws demand dowry from her. She also stated that when she used to visit she never saw any quarrel between the deceased and the appellants. 13. PW-4 father of the deceased stated in his examination-in-chief that the appellant and in-laws used to harass her daughter for bringing LCD TV and used to tell her that bring money from your parents home. In his cross examination he stated that appellant had illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). He also stated that his daughter used to visit her parental house. He also stated that he has not lodged any report regarding dowry any where. 14. PW-5 Shayra Begum, sister-in-law of the deceased stated in her examination-in-chief that in-laws of the deceased used to harass her for bringing dowry. In her cross examination she stated that 10 days prior to the incident the deceased came to their home and she was normal. 15. PW-6 brother-in-law of the deceased who lives nearby, stated in his examination-in-chief that when he went to the house of the deceased he saw her hanging. He further stated that he don’t know why she committed suicide. He, in his cross- examination, stated 7 CRA No. 109 of 2016 that deceased used to visit their house and he has also gone twice to the house of the deceased and when he went to the house of the deceased, he had never seen them quarreling. He also stated that they have not made any report in respect of dowry before the incident. PW-14 Kaushar Jahan neighbour of the deceased stated that the deceased and appellant used to live amicably and there was no dispute between them. 16. PW-9 Dr. S.K. Bagh stated in his statement that in his opinion cause of death was due to hanging and their was no other injury in the body of the deceased. 17. Bare perusal of the statements of the above witnesses would show that though all the witnesses have given the reason for suicide is dowry, none of the witnesses have ever stated in their statements that they have made any complaint before the society or police station and neither there has been any meeting in this regard between the family members. It is all of sudden, just after the suicide committed by the Deceased, the allegation of demand of dowry has been raised. None of the witnesses have ever stated in their depositions that the appellant had committed any cruelty with regard to dowry just before the incident. 18. Considering the entire evidence. the prosecution’s case rests on the allegation that the deceased was subjected to harassment for dowry, which led her to take the extreme step. However, during trial, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that there was any demand for dowry or harassment soon before the incident. Even 8 CRA No. 109 of 2016 the family members of the deceased did not depose about any such incident occurring close in time to the death as she visited her parental home just before the incident on 14.03.2015 and stayed till 18.03.2015 and the incident is of 27.03.2015. 19. Further in Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in (2023) 3 S.C.R. 511 the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in para 11 to 21 :- 11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath’s case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: ( i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The Offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” as: ( i) any wailful 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), or 9 CRA No. 109 of 2016 (ii) 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. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression “dowry” is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression “cruelty”, as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences. 12. As the aforesaid case was also pertaining to dowry death, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was also discussed in detail in paras 29 to 31 of the aforesaid judgment. The same are extracted below:- “29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact 10 CRA No. 109 of 2016 that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith. 30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be overeased to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the sections involved, lest justice is 11 CRA No. 109 of 2016 the casualty”. 13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:- “32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346] . In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema Prema S. Rao V. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in connection with the 12 CRA No. 109 of 2016 demand for dowry”. 14. With reference to the legal position as referred to above , the matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case in hand falls in the category where the presumption can be raised against the appellant relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused/appellant. 15. The date of death of the deceased is 22.6.1995. She was cremated on the same day. The stand taken by the appellant was that the parents of the deceased were informed who were living about 290 kms. away. However, they could not reach on time. It was further submitted that the maternal grandmother and two maternal uncles who were living at a distance of about one furlong from the matrimonial residence of the deceased when she died were present at the time of cremation. They neither raised any issue nor did they inform the police. Rather on the intervention of the panchayat, they had taken all the dowry articles. 16. The cruelty or harassment has to be soon before the death. In his evidence, Pratap Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased stated that two months after the marriage his daughter came to the parental home stating that the appellant was demanding motorcycle, however, she was sent back. Thereafter, she again came and apprised him that the demand of motorcycle was being pressed by the appellant. Besides motorcycle, land was also demanded. There is nothing in the statement that any such demand was raised immediately before the death as the incidents sought to be referred to are quite old. He admitted in his cross examination that at the time of funeral, his mother-in-law and two brothers-in- law were present. However, they were threatened not to 13 CRA No. 109 of 2016 lodge the complaint. Balbir Singh (PW-2), maternal uncle of the deceased, merely stated that at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given by the father of the deceased. However, later he heard that the appellant had demanded the motorcycle. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he was living at the distance of about one furlong from the house of the appellant. No dowry was demanded at the time of marriage of the deceased. He did not state that the deceased ever shared with him about the demand of dowry or any harassment on account of non-fulfilment thereof though he was living close to the matrimonial house of the deceased. 17. Beero Bai (PW-3), the maternal grandmother of the deceased, stated that her house is located at a distance of about one mile from the house of the appellant. She used to go to the house of the deceased. The deceased was being treated badly. She was not allowed to go to her parental house. The deceased informed her that the appellant used to ask her to bring motorcycle from her maternal grandmother. After the death of her husband in February 1995, the appellant asked the deceased to get land from her maternal grandmother. On a demand made to her, she replied in negative. However, in her cross- examination, she stated that the land was not demanded from her. Even in her statement, there is nothing to suggest that soon before the death, any cruelty or harassment was made to the deceased, either by the appellant or his family members. All what is stated is regarding the demand. There are no details of any cruelty or harassment, though this witness was living about a kilometre from the house of the deceased and is her maternal grandmother. 18. Joginder Singh (PW-4) is another witness produced 14 CRA No. 109 of 2016 by the prosecution, who is maternal uncle of the deceased. He was declared hostile. 19. Rajindra Singh (PW-5), Sub Inspector was a formal witness who had only registered the FIR and arrested the accused. 20. Babban Singh (PW-6), Circle Officer, Faridpur was the Investigating Officer. In his examination-in-chief, he admitted that he recorded the statement of Jagir Singh. He is the person who, as per the complaint made to the police, had informed the father of the deceased about the death of his daughter. However, he was not produced in evidence. 21. In the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, none of the witnesses stated about the cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the appellant or any of his family members on account of demand of dowry soon before the death or otherwise. Rather harassment has not been narrated by anyone. It is only certain oral averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which is also much prior to the incident.The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfil the pre- requisites to invoke presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death. 20. Further in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State Of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014 the Supreme Court has held at para 8 : 15 CRA No. 109 of 2016 8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant's wife occurred within seven years of the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. 21. In the present case, although the death took place within one year of marriage and is admittedly a case of suicide, but there is no material or evidence to show that the deceased was harassed for dowry soon before her death. As the Supreme Court has observed in Charan Singh (supra) that the proximity of the alleged cruelty to the death is essential to invoke Section 304-B IPC and the presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act. 16 CRA No. 109 of 2016 22. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is evident that the appellant used to demand money from his wife (deceased) towards financial help as he is having huge debts. Thus, the demand for money on account of financial difficulties cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. 23. It is well settled proposition of law that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for doing some business cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. 24. The Supreme Court in the matter of Appasaheb and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra1 held thus at para 11:- “ In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody coversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to 1 (2007) 9 SCC 721 17 CRA No. 109 of 2016 have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR (1996) SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of India AIR (1997) SC 558). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses of for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 25. In absence of any such evidence, the presumption under Section 113-B does not get triggered, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 26. For the foregoing discussions, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry and hence, I am of the opinion that this is not a case of dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC. As a result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant does not deserve to be sustained. 18 CRA No. 109 of 2016 27. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. 28. Appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 29. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti