1 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:32664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1669 of 2022 {Arising out of judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed in Sessions trial No.18/2021 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G.} 1 - Umeshwar Sidar S/o Chudamani Sidar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Litaipali, Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.07.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by the appellant herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.07.17 10:55:54 +0530 2 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions trial No.18/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Umeshwar Sidar), whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant herein for offence under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the deceased and the appellant got married on 15.06.2020 and within three months of marriage, the appellant harassed and tortured his wife Payal Sidar (the deceased) in connection with demand for dowry, due to which she committed suicide on 06.09.2020 at around 05:00 AM by consuming poison in her matrimonial house at Village Litaipali, Raigarh and, thereby, the appellant is said to have committed the aforesaid offence. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant on 15.06.2020 and after marriage, she had gone to her matrimonial house along with the appellant. Later, she was insisting to visit her parental house but on account of spread of Corona virus she was not allowed to go. Thereafter, on 06.09.2020 at around 05:00 AM, the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house by 3 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) consuming poison. On the same day, the appellant himself lodged marg intimation (Ex.P/17) at police station Pusour and the FIR was registered vide Ex.P/20. Spot Map and inquest Report were prepared vide Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/9 respectively. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.K. Chandrawanshi (PW-09) vide postmortem report Ex.P/17 and the cause of death has been stated to be poisoning and nature of death is opined to be suicidal. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents, whereas, the appellant in support of his defence has examined 01 witness but no document has been exhibited. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, 4 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though Payal Sidar (the deceased) died within three months of marriage in other than normal circumstances but the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. In alternative, he would submit that the appellant has been awarded with 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, whereas the minimum sentence under Section 304B of the IPC is 07 years, as such, the sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 304B of the IPC may be reduced to the minimum sentence i.e. 07 years. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment of 5 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature and it is not a case where the sentence of the appellant can be reduced, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Section 304B of the IPC which relates to dowry death:- “304B. 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 purposes 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 6 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came into force with effect from 19-11-1986. 10. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied- • The death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. • Such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. • Soon before the death of deceased, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her Husband or any relative of her Husband. • Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. Thus, if the aforesaid ingredients are established by the prosecution by leading appropriate reliable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. 11. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death, which reads as under:- 7 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) "113B. 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 has been subjected by such person to cruelty or 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 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra1, while considering the term "soon before her death", has held that term of the period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question and there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. It has been further held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 1 2012 (11) SCC 397 8 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) 13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the first ingredient that the death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances is established, as she has died by poisoning, which is other than normal circumstances, as proved by Dr. B.K. Chandrawanshi (PW-09) in postmortem report (Ex.P/17). Also, the marriage had taken place between the appellant and the deceased on 15.06.2020 and the date of incident was 06.09.2020, as such, the death have occurred within seven years of the marriage. Now, the next question is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant herein soon before her death, in connection with demand for dowry? In this regard, statements of the mother of the deceased – Kamla Sidar (PW-03), paternal uncle of the deceased – Manbodh Sidar (PW-04), cousin of the deceased – Rakhi Sidar (PW-06) and maternal uncle of the deceased – Manohar Sidar (PW-16) may be noticed herein profitably. The mother of the deceased – Kamla Sidar (PW-03) has categorically stated that after marriage, her daughter had gone to her matrimonial house along with the appellant and after 10-12 days, she was informed by the deceased over telephone that the appellant had started harassing 9 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) her saying less dowry was given and was demanding motorcycle in dowry and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/- was given to the appellant on his demand. Similarly, the paternal uncle of the deceased – Manbodh Sidar (PW-04) has also stated that though a number of articles were given in dowry to the appellant, the deceased had told him over phone that the appellant is harassing her for giving less dowry and not giving motorcycle in dowry. Similar statement has been made by cousin of the deceased – Rakhi Sidar (PW-06) that despite taking Rs.30,000/- the appellant continued to harass the deceased demanding more dowry. The maternal uncle of the deceased – Manohar Sidar (PW-16) has made similar statement that despite a number of articles were given to the appellant in dowry but he was informed by the deceased that the appellant was harassing her demanding more dowry. All of the said witnesses have been subjected to detailed cross- examination but nothing has been brought out to hold that they are telling lie and are making false statement before the Court and they all have clearly stated that the appellant was harassing the deceased in connection with demand for dowry soon after the marriage. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in para 29, 30 10 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) & 31 of the impugned judgment that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry soon before her death is a correct finding of fact, which is based on evidence available on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. 14. Now, the next question would be whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years as imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-accused for having committed offence under Section 304B of the IPC is justified or same is liable to be reduced to the minimum sentence of 07 years, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 15. Sub-section (2) of Section 304B of the IPC provides that whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 07 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and in the instant case the learned trial Court has imposed 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the appellant that too without recording any special/specific reason. Also, the appellant was only around 28 years old at the time when incident took place and he has not been found involved in committing jail offence post conviction and the appellant is in jail since 06.10.2020, it would be appropriate to convert 11 (CRA No. 1669 of 2022) the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court to 07 years rigorous imprisonment for committing offence under Section 304B of the IPC, minimum sentence prescribed for the said offence. 16. As such, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!