1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 64 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 11.06.2025 Judgment Delivered on 20.06.2025 • Dhaniram Pathak, S/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Pathak, aged about 58 Years, R/o Village Pahadi Nivar, Police Station Madhawgarh Post, Nivar, Civil and Revenue District Katni, Madhya Pradesh. ...Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Pandri District, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Satish Dubey, S/o Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 34 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Mowa, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address Village Budhera , Police Station Jewara, District Katani, Madhya Pradesh 3. Ravishankar Dubey, S/o Harimohan Dubey, aged about 58 Years, 4. Manorma Dubey, W/o Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 55 Years, 5. Ku. Shaily Dubey, D/o Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 22 Years, 6. Shraddha Dubey, D/o Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 25 Years, Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are R/o Laxmi Nagar Mowa, Police Station Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh Permanent Address Village Mudhara, Police Station Badwara, District, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. 7. Amit Pandey, S/o Siyasharan Pandey, aged about 34 Years, 8. Smt. Seema Pandey, W/o Amit Pandey, aged about 35 Years, Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 are R/o Laxmi Nagar, Mowa, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Village Nipaniya, Police Station Vyohari District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 : Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Pandey & Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocates. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.06.20 18:02:25 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/complainant arises out of the judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.301/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 herein of the charge under Section 304-B in alternative Section 304 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.07.2013, respondent No.2 Satish Dubey took his wife/deceased-Anjani Dubey to B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where she was declared brought dead by the Doctor and information about the same was given to Police Station, Moudhapara, Raipur, pursuant to which, merg intimation vide Ex.P-21 was recorded. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination where PW-11 Dr. S.K. Bhagh conducted the postmortem examination and gave his report vide Ex.P-17. According to PW-11 Dr. S.K. Bhagh, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of hanging. Thereafter, on 15.07.2013, PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased, lodged at written report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station Pandri-Mowa, Raipur stating therein that marriage of her daughter/deceased- Anjani Dubey was solemnized with respondent No.2 Satish Dubey on 7th June, 2011 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Soon after the marriage, her daughter/deceased-Anjani 3 Dubey joined her matrimonial home and after some time of marriage, accused persons started torturing and harassing her mentally and physically for brining insufficient dowry and also used to abuse and commit marpeet with her by saying that she did not bring a motorcycle in dowry and also forced her to bring money from her parental home, upon which, he had given a sum of Rs.52,000/- to respondent No.2 Satish Dubey. After that, on 12.07.2013, respondent No.2 told him over telephone to take his daughter/deceased back and upon inquiry from a relative, he came to know that her daughter/deceased has died. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-2), FIR (Ex.P-6) has been registered against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 8. During investigation, vide Ex.P-1, pieces of scarf (Dupatta), a sickle, a suicidal note and pages of register were seized and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-7. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 before the concerned trial Court under Section 304-B in alternative Section 304-B read with 34 of IPC. Accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 21 documents connecting the respondents No.2 to 8/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents No.2 to 8 / accused persons have examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Ravi Chaturvedi and exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1. 4 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No. 2 to 8 herein of said charge leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant would submit that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that the evidence available on record clearly shows that after marriage, deceased- Anjani Dubey was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry by the respondents No.2 to 8, due to which, she committed suicide by hanging herself as is evident from the statements of PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased and other prosecution witnesses and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of V.K. Mishra & another vs State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 would support the impugned judgment and submit that it is not proved by the prosecution that any demand of dowry was ever made by the respondents No.2 to 8 and even soon before her death. He would further submit that before the incident, no 5 report has been lodged by deceased or her relatives with respect to demand of dowry meted out by the accused persons. He would also submit that there is delay in lodging the written report and for this, no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. He would also submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased and PW-3 Krishna Pathak, brother of the deceased and their statements do not corroborate with the each other and other prosecution witnesses. Thus, impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well merited and needs no interference by this Court. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nepal Singh vs State of Haryana reported in (2009) 12 SCC 351 and Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and others vs State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 11 SCC 690 and the decision of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs Haresh Verma reported in 2025 SCC Online Chh 2718. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 would support the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The 6 reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 11. Yet, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Haresh Verma (supra), while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 also considered the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. Para 21 is relevant and reproduced for reference:- “21. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 12. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, 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 or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is present with the idea of proximity test. 13. As regards the principles concerning the above-referred provisions, this Court wishes to refer to the decisions reported in V.K. Mishra and 7 another (supra), K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao 1 & Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N. 2 . 14. In V.K. Mishra and another (supra), it has been held as under:- “7. In order to attract application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:- 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. 2. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned above, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. ‘Soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstance of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period ‘soon before the occurrence’. There must be inexistence a proximate live link between the facts of cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and the death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned it would be of no consequence. 15. In K. Prema S. Rao (supra) it has been held as under:- “16. … To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, 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 demand for dowry'.” 1(2003) 1 SCC 217 2(2004) 9 SCC 157 8 16. Now, the question is whether one of the ingredients of the offence is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons in connection with demand of dowry? 17. PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased, has stated that after one month of the marriage, when his son/PW-2 Krishna Pathak and son-in-law/PW-4 Pusphraj Tiwari went to Raipur to bring the deceased, at that time, accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 8 told them that they have given less dowry and told deceased to bring motorcycle when she would return to matrimonial home. He has further stated that when her daughter/deceased returned to matrimonial home, then accused persons started abusing and assaulting her by saying that as to why she did not bring motorcycle. He has also stated that after three days, deceased informed him over telephone that accused persons used to harass her mentally and physically for brining less dowry, but deceased did not state him specifically that accused persons used to harass her for demand motorcycle or money. He has also stated that when her daughter/deceased came to her parental home, even at that time, she informed him that about the harassment meted out by the accused persons for demand of dowry, but did not state him that about the demand of motorcycle or money made by the accused persons. He has also stated that on one occasion, when respondent No.2 Satish Dubey was demanding money, he had sent a sum of Rs.7,000/- to his daughter/deceased. He has also stated that he had again sent cash of Rs.52,000/- to mother-in-law of deceased through his son/PW-2 Krishna Pathak, but as against this, PW-2 Krishna Pathak has nowhere 9 stated in his deposition that he has given Rs.52,000/- to the mother-in- law of deceased. He has also stated that during panchnama proceedings, he saw injury over the head of the deceased and marks of assaulting on her hands, legs and back, but PW-11 Dr. S.K. Bagh, who examined the deceased, did not notice any such signs of assault. On the contrary, in cross-examination, he admitted that whenever deceased used to come to her parental home, accused persons used to send her happily. He further admitted that before the incident, he did not lodge any report in any police station or community against the accused persons with regard to harassment on account of demand of dowry. He also admitted that he does not know anything about the discussion between her daughter/deceased and son/PW-2 Krishna Pathak. He also admitted that in written report (Ex.P-2), firstly he mentioned the names of Ravi Bhushan Chaturvedi and Vashudev Pyashi, but after that, he overwritten their names with pen and mentioned the names of PW-7 Amit Pandey and PW-8 Seema Pandey as one of the accused persons. He also admitted that he had no knowledge about the suicidal note being written by his daughter/deceased and police told him about the suicidal note of deceased, but what was written in the suicidal note, police did not state him. 18. PW-3 Krishna Pathak, brother of the deceased, has stated that 2-3 days before the incident, deceased had informed him over telephone that accused persons are harassing her for bringing less dowry and demanding cash of Rs.20,000/- from her, however, the said fact is not mentioned the written report (Ex.P-2) and even in the statement of PW-1 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased. In cross-examination, 10 he also admitted that he did not lodge any report in any police station against the accused persons in relation to demand of dowry. He further admitted that police had informed his father/PW-1 Dhaniram Pathak about the suicidal note written by deceased. He also admitted that deceased was not upset with her in-laws and believed that if she behaved well, then they would also treat her well. 19. PW-4 Pushpraj Tiwari, son-in-law of PW-1 Dhaniram Pathak, although in his deposition, has stated that accused persons had told the deceased to bring motorcycle whenever she would come to her matrimonial home, but in his police statement (Ex.D-1), he has not stated that accused persons demanded motorcycle from the deceased. 20. PW-5 Santosh Kumar Pathak, uncle of the deceased, has stated that his brother/PW-2 Dhaniram used to state him about the harassment being faced by the deceased in her in-laws house, but in cross- examination, he admitted that he never asked about the deceased in this regard. He also admitted that while giving statement, he had not informed the police that deceased was facing harassment in her in-laws house and also not informed that respondent No.2 Satish Dubey and his mother told him that they killed the deceased and for the first time before the Court, he disclosed the said fact. 21. PW-6 R.S. Sahu, Investigating Officer, admitted in his cross- examination that during merg proceedings, he came to know that deceased has written a suicidal note and he also read out the same. He also admitted that in the said note written by the deceased, there was no allegation against the accused persons and rather it was written that 11 she is going to die on her own free will. After that, he seized the said suicidal note and sent for investigation and made available xerox copy of the suicidal note on record. This apart, PW-10 Rakesh Bhatt, City Superintendent of Police, in his cross-examination, also admitted that he saw the suicidal note of the deceased wherein it was written that she is going to die on her own will. 22. Besides above, PW-11 Dr. S.K. Bagh, has stated that during examination, although he found injury present on the head of the deceased, but he has stated that, that injury was insufficient to cause death and according to him, deceased died due to suffocation caused by hanging. In cross-examination, he admitted that there were no injury marks of any nature over the body of the deceased. It is also admitted by him that he did not find any marks of struggle over the body of deceased. 23. Thus, from perusal of above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased and PW-3 Krishna Pathak and other prosecution witnesses with respect to alleged demand of dowry made by accused persons and their statements do not corroborate with each other and contents of written report (Ex.P-2), rather it appears that the allegations leveled by them are casual, bald and omnibus, therefore, credibility of their evidence is doubtful. Furthermore, there is no mention anywhere in the written report (Ex.P-2) with respect to demand of Rs.52,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- made by the accused persons and that PW-3 Krishna Pathak, brother of the deceased, has also not stated 12 anywhere in his statement about the demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs.52,000/- made by the accused persons. In addition, it is pertinent to mention here that although during investigation, one suicidal note vide Ex.P-1 (seizure memo) was shown to be seized wherein it was written that deceased is going to die on her own will and that no allegation was leveled by her against accused persons and the same is evident from the evidence of PW-6 R.S. Sahu, I.O. and PW-10 Rakesh Bhatt, C.S.P., but a perusal of entire record would show that there was no depiction of alleged suicidal note nor the same was exhibited and on the contrary, a copy of suicidal note was attached with the record, whereas this being a pivotal evidence, should have been exhibited on record. Moreover, contents of written report (Ex.P-2) would show that the incident occurred on 12.07.2013, but PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased, lodged a written report (Ex.P-2) on 15.07.2017, for which, no explanation has been offered by him for delay in lodging the written report (Ex.P-2). Furthermore, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in the crime in question. It is also pertinent to mention here that prosecution witnesses PW-2 Dhaniram Pathak, father of the deceased and PW-3 Krishna Pathak, brother of the deceased, are the close relatives of the deceased and despite that, their statements do not corroborate with each other and moreso, do not even corroborate with the statements of other prosecution witnesses and the contents of written report (Ex.P-2) as there are full of material contradictions and omissions in their statements, which is fatal to the prosecution and weakens the prosecution's case. The learned trial Court has elaborately 13 discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence minutely come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that soon before the death, accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 8 subjected the deceased to harassment for demand of dowry and that the accused persons, in any way, instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as such, acquitted them of the said charge as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 25. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/complainant against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 8 herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh