1 2025:CGHC:8539-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3438 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Charcha, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Mankunwar Sahu W/o Dharamjit Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Phulpur, Charcha, Police Station Charcha, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sachin Sahu @ Raju Sahu S/o Dharamjit Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Phulpur, Charcha, Police Station Charcha, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.19 17:06:13 +0530 2 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2024 is allowed and delay of 303 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2023 passed in Session Trial No.76 of 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional Session Judge has acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) Accused No.1 is mother-in-law of deceased and accused No.2 is husband of deceased. Marriage of the deceased with accused No.2 was solemnized on 30.05.2015. After some time of marriage, accused persons demanded dowry on account of which, Sangeeta (deceased) committed suicide by setting her ablaze on 19.10.2022. She was sent to District Hospital, Baikunthpur for treatment, where she succumbed to the injuries on 25.02.2022. (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the respondents/accused were put to face 3 charges before the learned trial Court. The respondents/accused adjured their guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in its favour. (iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2023, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the dying declaration of the deceased as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. Learned State counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right prospective, particularly the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P/7). It has been contended that the learned trial Court also committed error of law in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents only on the basis of minor omission and contradictions. Thus, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondents/accused from the aforesaid offence by 4 recording a finding which is perverse to record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted. 6. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur District Korea (C.G.), while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 52 to 57 as follows: “52. In this case, if the dying declaration Ex.P.-7 is to be believed, it is mentioned that in the morning the deceased had set herself on fire after her husband came home drunk and beat her and thereafter her husband and mother-in-law came to rescue her. The said statement is said to have been made by the deceased at Kalda Nursing Home, Raipur. Whereas in Kalda Nursing Home, the deceased had called her mother Harikash Kumari (PW-2), her brother Sandeep (PW-3) to wash room. Her mother-in-law used to abuse her because of the machine and the ring. Her husband hit her on the face, hit her on the stomach where the operation was to be done, her mother-in-law kept saying that she was unlucky, she should not go and die, 5 on saying this she poured kerosene oil on her and set herself on fire. Whereas at the same time in her dying statement it has not been mentioned that the deceased was harassed by the accused demanding the washing machine and the ring, that she was hit on the face, that she was kicked. It has only been stated that she poured kerosene oil on her and set herself on fire after being beaten up after drinking alcohol. It has been stated that her husband and younger mother- in-law were responsible for the incident and that she has forgiven them, but there is no mention of how the younger mother-in-law was responsible. 53. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2023 SCC Online SC 454 observed that a presumption can be made in respect of dowry death only when it is proved that before death, the woman was harassed for dowry and cruelty was caused to her. 54. In such a case, the presumption of dowry 6 death can be raised under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, if it is proved that some time before the death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for some demand of dowry. 55. In the case, the deceased was harassed for dowry just before the incident. There is no clear evidence in this regard. Whereas, it is clear from the statement made in paragraph 8 of the cross-examination of the deceased's father Sadan Ram (PW-1) that before being burnt, the deceased used to talk to him on phone, wanted to visit her maternal home and had asked accused Sachin to drop her to her maternal home. When she used to ask for permission, the accused used to say that they would go after a few days. The deceased used to tell him also that Sachin is not getting time, you people should come and take her. In this way, it is also shown from the said statement that before the incident, the deceased wanted to go to her maternal home and accused Sachin was not taking her to her maternal home. It is also clear in paragraph-7 of the cross- 7 examination of Sandeep Kumar Sahu (PW-3) that Mankunwar had said that the reason for the deceased's burning was not being taken to her maternal home. Due to which, there was a dispute between Mankunwar and the deceased's mother Harikash during the Nahavan ceremony. 56. In these circumstances, it becomes doubtful whether the accused had harassed the deceased and inflicted cruelty on her for the fulfillment of their dowry demand just before the incident. In such a case, the case of causing death of the deceased due to dowry cannot be proved beyond doubt against the accused. 57. On the basis of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the accused, in furtherance of common intention, on 19/02/2022 at 11.00 am, in village Phulpur under police station Charcha, harassed the deceased Sangeeta, being her husband and her husband's relatives, and caused cruelty to her for compensation of illegal demand of dowry, due to which the 8 deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire and the deceased died under abnormal circumstances. Consequently, the accused are acquitted of the charge under section 304 B/34 IPC.” 8. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 9. 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 9 view taken is not possible at all." 10. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu