1 2025:CGHC:4919-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.1112 of 2024 1 - Panchram Pal S/o Late Nohar Pal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Mandala P.S. Khairgarh District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Khileshwar Pal S/o Puran Pal Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Irimkasa Police Station Gandai District - Khairgarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh (Accused In The Court Below) 2 - Puran Pal S/o Balam Pal Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Irimkasa Police Station Gandai District - Khairgarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh 3 - Dhaneshwar Pal S/o Puran Pal Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Village Irimkasa Police Station Gandai District - Khairgarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Vimla Bai Pal W/o Puran Pal Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village Irimkasa Police Station Gandai District - Khairgarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Pinki Pal W/o Khileswar Pal Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Village Irimkasa Police Station Gandai District - Khairgarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Kirti Pal @ Radhika Pal W/o Rajendra Pal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gadaghat Police Station Khairagarh District - Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Gandai District - Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) (Prosecution) ... Respondent(s) SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.7/State : Shri R. N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/father of the victim under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Revenue District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Civil District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Case No.16/2022, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 and 498-A/34 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage of the deceased-Smt. Manisha Pal was solemnized with Respondent No.3- Dhaneshwar Pal on 18.04.2021 and after sometime, she committed suicide by consuming poison on 28.01.2022 at 08.30 AM. She was admitted immediately to the Government Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where her MLC (Ex.P-11) was made and thereafter, she was referred to the Narayana Hospital, Raipur, where she died on 30.01.2022 at 04.40 PM, during here treatment. The information regarding her death was made by one Rajuram Nishad, the Ward-boy of the said hospital and based upon which, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered on 01.03.2022 against the respondents with regard to the offences mentioned herein-above. After recording the 3 statements of the parents of the deceased and others’ and after completing usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, with regard to the alleged offence, who in turn, has committed the matter for its trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, where the charges have been framed against the respondents under Sections 304-B/34 and 498-A/34 of IPC, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses and produced 32 documents, while one witness has been examined by the respondents in their defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that since none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was harassed and/or maltreated by the respondents soon before her death and accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the appellant/Father of the victim has preferred this appeal. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents-accused from the commission of the alleged offence. 4 6) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7/State has supported the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased-Manisha Pal was solemnized with Respondent No.3- Dhaneshwar Pal on 18.04.2021 and immediately thereafter, she consumed poison on 28.01.2022 at 08.30 AM and because of that, she died on 30.01.2022 at 04.40 PM, during the course of her treatment at Narayana Hospital, Raipur and based upon the merg intimation, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the First Information Report (Ex.P-17) was registered on 01.03.2022 with regard to the offences mentioned herein-above. 9) Since the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, therefore, it is necessary to examine the said provisions which read as under:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty._ Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause 5 grave injury or danger to life, 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 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. 304 B. 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 purpose 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 shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 10) According to Section 498-A IPC, the basic ingredients are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far as Clause (a) is concerned have been classified as under :- (i) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman is to commit suicide or (ii) Any wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman or (iii) Any wilful act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the women. 6 11) The definition of cruelty contained in explanation consists in two parts. Clause (a) relates to wilful conduct, which is of such a nature to drive the woman to commit suicide as observed hereinabove. The second part, which contains in Clause (b) relates to harassment of woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for property etc. Therefore, in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as provided under the explanation to the said provision and it would not be enough to show that the conduct of the respondents was wilful, but it has to be established further the degree or intensity of such conduct, which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In other words, it would not be sufficient enough to say that the deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Insofar as the ingredients provided under Section 304-B are concerned, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry and only thereafter, the respondents could be held guilty with regard to the offence mentioned therein. 12) While keeping the ingredients provided under the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. 13) Panchram Pal (PW-1), who is father of the deceased, has stated in his evidence at paragraph-4 that after the marriage of his daughter, 7 she lived with her in-laws for 2 to 4 days and thereafter, she came back and lived for a week and during this period, she has not raised any kind of complaint against her in-laws. It is stated further that the Respondent No.6-Kirti Pal, who is Sister-in-law (Nanad) of her daughter, has instigated the other accused persons for demanding motorcycle and television, but, no report as such was lodged with regard to the alleged allegations of demand of dowry and, rather, it reflects from paragraphs-29 and 33 of his testimony, that whatever allegations have been alleged by him against the accused persons, are only after the death of his daughter, nor any kind of meeting regarding the alleged harassment was convened in the village. It is to be seen further that prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Puran Pal, i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein, had lodged the report, (Ex.D-2) before the Police Station-Gandai on 18.12.2021 against his son-Dhaneshwar and daughter-in-law, namely, Manisha Pal, the deceased, wherein it was alleged that even after giving cash amount and immovable property in partition, they are still trying to threaten him and his elder son-Khileshwar Pal (Respondent No.1) and his wife Smt. Pinki Pal (Respondent No.5) with the help of Tikaram, the brother-in-law of his son, in order to implicate in a false dowry matter. 14) Tikaram Pal (PW-2), who was the brother of the deceased, has stated at paragraph-5 that when he went to his sister’s in-laws house, he has seen that she was harassed and maltreated by the respondents on account of the demand of dowry, but the statement of him was, however, not found to be duly corroborated by his father, as found herein-above. It appears further that although Uma Bai (PW-4), 8 mother of the deceased, has stated that her daughter was harassed because of demand of dowry, but, that was her version made upon the information received from her daughter. She is, thus, a hearsay witness and her alleged version was even otherwise not found to be corroborated by her husband (PW-1). It reveals further from her testimony, particularly paragraph 11 that since nothing was done by respondents, either against them or the deceased daughter-in-law- Manisha, therefore, they had not lodged any report against them. 15) That apart, when the deceased-Manisha Pal was admitted into the Government Hospital at Rajnandgaon, where her dying declaration (un-exhibited) was recorded and, a bare perusal of it would, however, show that since she was not being liked by her in-laws, therefore, she was being harassed by them. It has, however, not alleged therein that she was harassed because of demand of dowry. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed on record, so as to hold that she was harassed by the respondents because of the demand of dowry. 16) In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime punishable under Sections 304- B/34, 498-A/34 of IPC. 17) The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/-SD/-/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge - SD/-/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane