1 2025:CGHC:50375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on :18.9.2025 Judgment Delivered on :09.10.2025 Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2022 Pawan Prajapati S/o Pratap Singh Prajapati Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Purana, Hatwarapara, Belargaon, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. DN Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) CAV JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2021 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (CG) in Session Case No.36/2021, whereby the learned Upper Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.10.09 17:35:31 +0530 2 Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 306 IPC RI for 05 years Rs.500/- RI for 06 months 02. 498A IPC RI for 01 year Rs.500/- RI for 01 month All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused and his resultant conviction in nutshell are that, on 06.12.2019 at about 10.10 am, the appellant/accused lodged Dehati merg intimation (Ex-P/24) stating inter alia that in the intervening night of 05-06/12/2019, he was sleeping along with his wife Basanti Bai and their three children had gone to sleep at the house of their badi maa. On 06.12.2019 at 6.30 am, their elder daughter Chandni Prajapati and sister-in-law (bhabhi) Jayantri Prajapati came and woke him up and told that there is black smoke in the house. Upon searching, they found that Basanti Bai was lying in burnt condition. Investigation Officer Gendlal Sahu (PW-14) prepared spot map (Ex-P/25), seized burnt piece of blanket, gamcha, another burnt piece of blanket, match box, burnt piece of tyre smelling of kerosene, another burnt piece of tyre of bicycle, one chimney box, one piece of plastic container containing 200 ml of kerosene, burnt piece of broomstick from the spot vide seizure memo Ex-P/19. He also seized cotton that was used to rub the burnt wall, plain paint of the wall vide seizure memo Ex-P/20, burnt ash of chest and back of the deceased was also seized from the spot vide seizure memo P/21, dehati nalishi (Ex-26) was registered. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-15) and he opined that vital part of the deceased was burnt upto 3rd and 4th degree. He also found contusion on her lower lips, right frontal and temporal region and 3 right arm lateral aspect, which were caused by hard and blunt object, but because of severe burning of the body, he showed his inability to opine the cause of death. He preserved all internal organs which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex-P/15. He also preserved scalp hair of the deceased, burnt piece of clothes and contents of blood, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex-P/16 by the police. After receiving FSL report (Ex-P/35 to Ex-P/37) vide final postmortem report(Ex-P/38), he opined that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of burns and burn injuries were antemortem in nature. Investigating Officer also collected register of the social meeting held in respect of the deceased. In merg inquiry, it was found that the appellant used to harass the deceased by saying that she deliver only female children and after consuming liquor, he used to assault/torture her. On the basis of merg inquiry, FIR (Ex-P/27) was registered against the appellant under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. During the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested vide seizure memo Ex-P/22. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him for the aforesaid offence. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 306 & 498A IPC against the appellant, who abjured his guilt and sought for trial. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents, the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and 4 pleaded innocence and false implication. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant in his defence. 3. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court by holding the appellant guilty, convicted him for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only allegation against the appellant is that he is a drunkard and after consuming liquor he used to beat his wife. There is no allegation against the appellant that he ever demanded any money or dowry from the deceased or her family members. Nature of aforesaid allegation does not fall under the category of ‘Cruelty’ as has been defined vide Explanation in Section 498A IPC. For the said offence, willful conduct of the accused is necessary. But in the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant willfully consumed alcohol and beat his wife with intention to harass her or she would commit suicide. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC is perverse and illegal, as no case of ‘Cruelty’ is made out against the appellant. He further submits that so far as conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is concerned, for conviction of a person under Section 306 IPC, ingredients of Section 107 IPC are necessary, but in the instant case, the appellant is said to be drunkard and some time he used to beat his wife (deceased), which cannot be treated as abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is also perverse and illegal, as no abetment has been proved against him. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted by setting aside impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. He further 5 submits that presently the appellant is on bail in compliance of Order passed by this Court on 04.5.2022. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. I have carefully considered the statement so advanced and perused the record and oral and documentary evidence. 7. Ku. Chandni Prajapat (PW-1), aged about 15 years and Ku. Umeshwari Prajapati (PW-2) of similar age, are daughters of the deceased and the appellant. They have stated in their deposition that, their mother died in a fire in their house. Their statement also got support from the statement of Janyantri Prajapati (PW-3), sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the appellant. Chaitram Kumbhkar (PW-7) & Sudarshar Kumbhkar (PW-8) are brothers of the deceased and after receiving the information, they reached to the house of the deceased and seen the dead body in burnt condition and they have also supported aforesaid facts. 8. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-15) conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He stated in his deposition that vital parts of the dead body of the deceased were burnt upto 3rd / 4th degree. Because of severe burning of the body, he could not opine cause of death in postmortem report (Ex-P/39). Therefore, he preserved pieces of internal organs as well as burnt hair of scalp of the deceased and blood contents, which were sent to FSL. In FSL report ( Ex-P/35 and Ex-P/37), it has been reported that in Article A ( piece of burnt blanket), B (piece of burnt white gamcha), C (one burnt piece of orange colour plasitc) , E (a piece of burnt tyre), G (chinmni box), L (ash of burnt body part of the deceased), M (burnt pieces of clothing 6 of the deceased) and N (scalp hair of the deceased), presence of kerosene was found, but in viscera of the deceased, no chemical poison was found, but in the blood of the deceased (Article A) presence of Carbon Monoxide was reported to be found. After examining the FSL report vide final postmortem report (Ex-P/38), Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-15) has opined that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of burns and the burn injuries were antemortem in nature. 9. Though Chaitram (PW-7) , who is brother of the deceased, has stated in his deposition that upon looking to the dead body of the deceased, he felt that she was set ablaze by the appellant, but there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove aforesaid fact. Even Chandni Prajpati (PW-1) & Umeshwari Prajapati (PW-2), who are daughters of the deceased, have also not stated anything in this regard. Therefore, suicidal death of deceased Basanti Bai occurred in the intervening night of 05/06-12-2019 is not much in dispute, rather this fact also get support from the deposition of other witnesses as mentioned above and also from the deposition of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-15), who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that nature of death of the deceased was suicidal, is based on appreciation of the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference of this court. Hence, the same is affirmed. 10. Now let us examine the evidence of the prosecution to ascertain as to whether it is proved by the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide and the appellant/accused had ‘abetted her to commit suicide’ subjecting her to ‘cruelty’. 7 11. At the outset, it would be appropriate to quote definition of term ‘Cruelty’. The Explanation of Section 498A IPC defines the term of ‘Cruelty’ in the following manner:- 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- XXX XXX XXX Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger tolife, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related toher 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. 12. 12. Bare perusal of the term of ‘Cruelty’ as explained under 498A IPC makes it clear that same may be mental as well as physical. Meaning of the term ‘Cruelty’ varies from place to place and from individual to individual. The status of the parties is also relevant while determining the acts complaint can constitute cruelty as explained under Section 498A IPC. For determining this aspect, the Court is always required to consider the whole facts of relationship between the parties. Suffice to state that cruelty postulates such treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life. Torture 8 alleged is required to be of such a nature that would drive a married lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life. Normal pitfalls in the married life cannot constitute legal clarity as envisaged by Section 498A IPC. For cruelty as defined in 498A Explanation (a), conduct of harassment by a person to the wife ought to have wilful, that too likely to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life , limb or health. 13. Keeping in mind this position of law, let us examine whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant/husband. 14. In the instant case, main allegation against the appellant with regard to cruelty under Section 498A IPC is that the appellant is drunkard and after consuming liquor he used to beat his wife (deceased) by saying that she deliver only female children, but aforesaid fact does not get support from Chandni Prajapati (PW-1) & Umeshwari Prajapati (PW-2) , who are daughters of the deceased and the appellant. Rather they have stated in their deposition that the appellant treated the deceased well and did not quarrel with her. Both these witnesses have completely turned hostile. Smt. Jayantri (PW-3), who is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the appellant, has also not supported aforesaid fact. 15. Chaitram (PW-7) is brother of the deceased. He has stated in his deposition that 8-10 days prior to the date of incident, he had gone to the village of the deceased and at that time, his sister (deceased) had told that the appellant had beaten her by water pipe, therefore, there was mark on her back side. He has further stated that the deceased had told him that whenever the appellant consumes liquor, he used to beat her. Sudarshan 9 Kumbhkar (PW-8) is also brother of the deceased. According to his deposition, when the deceased became pregnant for the third time, the appellant used to beat her after consuming liquor and also used to beat her while demanding money. As per the deposition of Chaitram (PW-7) & Sudarshan (PW-8), the deceased had told them about aforesaid facts. 16. Smt. Sarika Meher (PW-4) is relative of the deceased and Vice President of their Society (Kumbhkar Samaj), Lokesh Kumbhkar (PW-5) is office bearer of association of their society, Chaitram (PW-7) & Sudarshan (PW-8) are brothers of the deceased. They have stated in their deposition that because of aforesaid harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant, she had left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home (maika), therefore, on application given by the appellant, social meeting was held on 16.6.2018. Their further deposition was that in that meeting also the deceased had complained about the harassment/marpeet meted out to her by the appellant after consuming liquor, therefore, she had shown her unwillingness to go with the appellant, but upon assurance given by the appellant that he will not harass her, she went to the matrimonial place. In this regard, police also collected minutes of the meeting recorded in the register (true copy Ex-P/12) in which Smt. Sarika Mehar (PW-4) & Lokesh Kumbhkar (PW-5) have proved their signatures. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to discard aforesaid evidence. Therefore, from the deposition of Smt. Sarika Mehar (PW-4), Lokesh Kumbhkar (PW-5), Chaitram (PW-7) & Sudarshan (PW-8), it is found proved that because of harassment/assault meted out to the deceased by the appellant after consuming liquor, she left his company and thereafter in the 10 social meeting the appellant had given assurance that he will not harass her. Thereafter she joined his company and went to her matrimonial place. But neither these witnesses have stated that in marital life of 16-17 years, how many times, the deceased had left the company of the appellant and how many times the appellant harassed/beaten the deceased. In this regard, neighbours of the appellant would be the best witnesses, but none of such witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The best witnesses with regard to aforesaid allegation are daughters of the deceased and sister-in- law of the appellant, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. 17. Recently, in the case of Geddam Jhansi & Anr. vs. State of Telengana & Ors., (2025) SCC Online SC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 34 as under:- 34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such 11 perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants. 18. In the instant case also though from the deposition of Smt. Sarika Mehar (PW-4), Lokesh Kumbhkar (PW-5), Chaitram (PW-7) & Sudarshan (PW-8), it is found that because of harassment meted out to the deceased, she had left the company of the appellant and returned after getting assurance from him in social meeting. Chaitram (PW-7) also deposed that 8- 10 days prior to the date of incident, the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of water pipe, but they have not stated as to how many times such social meetings were convened and whether the deceased had made any complaint to the police against the appellant in respect of alleged frequent harassment meted out to her by the appellant. Aforesaid allegation also does not get support from the children and sister-in-law of the deceased. The neighbours of the deceased, who could have been the best witnesses, were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence brought by the prosecution against the appellant with regard to cruelty committed by him upon the deceased revealed in the social meeting, is found to be very weak type, hence, it could not be based for his conviction. As such, finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is not found to be sustainable. 19. So far as allegation against the appellant in respect of ‘abetment to commit suicide’ is concerned, it is apposite to quote the observations of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which the Supreme Court while 12 discussing the necessary ingredients of abetment for convicting the accused, has observed in para 20 to 22 as under:- 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 22. Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and 13 may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned. 20. Applying the aforesaid law rendered by the Apex Court, if the facts and evidence of the instant case is examined, then, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the prosecution has not proved by adducing any clinching evidence that the appellant used to harass/assault the deceased which can be termed to be ‘cruelty’ as has been defined under Section 498A IPC. Even otherwise, if it is accepted that the appellant was a drunkard and sometimes beat his wife, then also it cannot be held that he did all these things with intention that the deceased would commit suicide or harm herself in other manner. Consuming alcohol by a person is social evil and some people deeply entangle in that evil. Some times it destroys some families, as drunkard persons of a family harass other family members on various counts. But to bring such conduct of a person to be termed as cruelty or abetment to commit suicide by any family member, series of such willful conduct along with his intention that it will goad, urge forward, provoke or incite or encourage to do the act of suicide and ought to have been proved by adducing clinching evidence which has not been proved by the prosecution against the appellant in the instant case for his conviction under Section 306 IPC, rather conviction of the appellant held by the trial Court is based on very 14 weak type of evidence, which is not found to be sustainable. Hence, I feel inclined to allow instant appeal. 21. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari in Sessions Case No.36/2021 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 498A & 306 IPC are set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges. 22. The appellant/accused is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant/accused shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with original record be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini