1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1174 of 2024 Judgment Reserved on 11.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 19.03.2025 • Veena Devi Agrahari (Beenadevi), W/o Sanjay Kumar Agrahari, aged about 44 Years, R/o Village Chir Bagicha, Police Station Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ...Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer Police Station Tamnar, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Abhishek Gupta, S/o Shadilal Gupta, aged about 28 Years, 3. Shadilal Gupta, S/o Late Sundarlal Gupta, aged about 58 Years, 4. Smt. Sanju Gupta, W/o Shadilal Gupta, aged about 51 Years, 5. Avinash Gupta, S/o Shadilal Gupta, aged about 24 Years, Nos. 2 to 5 are R/o Village Godhi, Police Station Tamnar, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/complainant arises out of the judgment dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Additional AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.19 17:29:28 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.36/2024, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 5 herein of the charge under Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-21 Veena Devi Agrahari, mother of the deceased- Priyanka Gupta lodged a written report (Ex.P-19) stating therein that marriage of her daughter/deceased- Priyanka Gupta was solemnized with respondent No.1 Abhishek Gupta on 09.12.2023 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Soon after the marriage, deceased- Priyanka Gupta joined her matrimonial home and after few days thereof, when her daughter/deceased asked something from her in-laws, they used to tell her to ask her father and also forced her to bring money and grocery items. It is further alleged that whenever her daughter/deceased used to go outside, she was forced to veil her face and likewise, whenever her in-laws used to go outside, they used to lock her inside the house. It is also alleged that her daughter/deceased used to remain in fear that her in-laws would kill her. Further allegation is that all the family members of her matrimonial home used to tell her daughter/deceased to bring more money and compel her to wear saree to maintain their prestige. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-19), FIR (Ex.P-20) has been registered against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Thereafter, merg intimation vide Ex.P-16 was recorded and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination where PW-19 Dr. A.K. Minj conducted the postmortem examination and gave his 3 report vide Ex.P-17. According to PW-19 Dr. A.K. Minj, cause of death of deceased was cardio-respiratory arrest due to unknown reason and advised for chemical analysis. During investigation, vide Ex.P-13, spot map was prepared. From the spot, one mobile phone made of Redmi company and Saree of deceased were seized vide Ex.P-6. One blue scarf (Chunri) and other articles were seized vide Ex.P-14 and accused persons were taken into custody. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court under Section 304-B read with 34 of IPC. Accused persons/respondents No.2 to 5 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 25 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 35 documents connecting the respondents No.2 to 5/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondents No.2 to 5/accused persons have examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Abhishek Gupta and DW-2 Yogesh Kumar Gupta, but not exhibited any document. 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 5 herein of said charge leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant would submit that the trial Court is completely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 5 herein of said charge by recording 4 perverse findings. She would further submit that the evidence available on record clearly shows that after two months of marriage, deceased-died as she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry by the respondents No.2 to 5 and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 5 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. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 9. 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 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.” 10. 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 5 her death" used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is present with the idea of proximity test. 11. As regards the principles concerning the above-referred provisions, this Court wishes to refer to the decisions reported in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao 1 & Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N. 2 . 12. 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'.” 13. In Kaliyaperumal (supra) relevant portion reads as under:- “5. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 1(2003) 1 SCC 217 2(2004) 9 SCC 157 6 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 14. 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 or not? 15. PW-7 Sanjay Agrahari, father of the deceased, has stated that on 18.02.2024 at about 12:00 pm, his wife/PW-21 informed him over telephone that respondent No.4 Smt. Sanju Gupta called her and told that health of deceased-Priyanka is not good, on this both he along with his wife, rushed to the matrimonial home of deceased and asked the accused persons who told him that masala had spilled over the saree of deceased and for changing the same, she has gone upstairs. Then he asked the real facts, upon which, accused persons-Avinash Gupta and Abhishek Gupta got annoyed and told him to leave from there. After some time, police came and said that case has been registered and told him to sign on it, then he came to know that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. However, the said facts were not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-19). This apart, PW-1 father of the deceased has also stated that before marriage of deceased with respondent No.1 Abhishek, respondent No-3 Shadilal Gupta along with 17-18 persons came to his house to see 7 Priyanka/deceased and demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- for marriage, due to which, their marriage was not fixed. After few days, with the efforts of Respondent No.3- Shadilal Gupta & respondent No.4 – Smt. Sanju Gupta, marriage of deceased and respondent No.1- Abhishek Gupta was fixed and on 22.05.2023, they got engaged and after some days of engagement, respondent No.3 Shadilal Gupta called him and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from him for marriage and thereafter, he transferred the said amount to the account of respondent No.3 Shadilal Gupta. After that, on 09.12.2023, marriage of deceased and respondent No.1 Abhishek was performed and after marriage, when deceased-Priyanka came to her parental home, then she informed that her mother-in-law/respondent No.3 used to harass her for brining insufficient dowry and did not offer food to her and told her to bring money from her father, however, the above facts have also not been mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-19). In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of marriage, he along with 50-55 persons went to village Godi for performing the marriage of his daughter/deceased where accused persons had done all the preparations of marriage i.e. arrangement of hall, catering, lights and DJ etc. He also admitted that, had he performed marriage of his daughter/deceased at Jashpur, then he would have made arrangements of Catering, light and DJ. Thus, it appears that he (PW- 1) had given Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.3 Shadilal Gupta for the arrangement of marriage. He also admitted that he did not lodge any report in any police station or community against the respondent No.3 Shadilal Gupta with regard to demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and 8 further admitted that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons. He also admitted that accused persons did not permit her daughter/deceased to go anywhere and wear clothes according to her wish. He also admitted that when first time accused persons had come to her house to see her daughter/deceased for marriage, they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from him, however, the said facts have not been mentioned in his police statement Ex.D-1. He also admitted that accused persons did not commit marpeet with him. He also admitted that before the incident, he did not lodge any report in any police station or community against the accused persons with regard to demand of dowry. 16. This apart, PW-21 Veena Devi Agrahari, mother of the deceased, has stated that at time of marriage of her daughter/deceased, accused persons demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, however, the said fact has not been mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-19). She has further stated that some days before marriage, a demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold chain and gold ring was again raised by the accused persons, then at the time of marriage, they gave golden chain and golden ring to respondent No.2 Abhishek. She has also stated that after marriage, when daughter/deceased had come to her parental home, then she told her that her mother-in-law/respondent No.4 used to taunt for bringing less dowry and also torture her to bring more dowry and did not offer food to her. She has also stated that her daughter/deceased told her that accused persons quarreled with her and pressurized her to bring Rs.50,000/- and also threatened her. She has also stated due 9 to assault, her daughter/deceased had sustained injuries over her body, however, the said facts were not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-19) lodged by her. In cross-examination, she admitted that in written report (Ex.P-19) and in FIR (Ex.P-20), no complaint was written with respect to demand of dowry made by accused persons after marriage. She further admitted that all arrangements of marriage had been done by the accused persons themselves. Although she admitted in cross-examination that accused persons used to commit marpeet with her daughter/deceased, taunt her and compel her to bring dowry, but these facts were not mentioned in her police statement Ex.D-3. 17. Likewise, PW-1 Santosh Prasad, Maternal Uncle of the deceased, admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of incident i.e. 18.02.2024, deceased talked her mother/PW-21 and only told her about the wedding photos. He further admitted that although he used to talk his sister/PW-21, but she did not disclose him with respect to demand of dowry made by accused persons. 18. Besides above, PW-13 Shatrughan Singh Shyam, Scientific Officer, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not find any external injury except injury over the neck of deceased on account of hanging. Further, PW-19 A.K. Minj, Senior Medical Officer, has stated, on the basis of I.F.S.L. report, that nature of death of the deceased was suicidal. In cross-examination, he also admitted that he did not find any external injury or mark over the person of the deceased. It is also admitted by him, on the basis of I.F.S.L. report, that he did not find any marks of struggling over the body of deceased. 19. Thus, from perusal of above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are 10 material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-7 Sanjay Kumar Agrahari, father of the deceased, PW-21 Veena Devi Agrahari, mother of the deceased and PW-1 Santosh Prasad, maternal uncle of the deceased with respect to demand of dowry made by accused persons and their statements do not corroborate with each other, written report (Ex.P-19) and their police statements (Exs.D-1 & D-3), rather it appears that the allegations leveled by them are general, bald and omnibus, therefore, credibility of their evidence is doubtful. Furthermore, there is no mention anywhere in the written report (Ex.P- 19) with respect to demand of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- made by the accused persons. Moreover, PW-13 Shatrughan Singh Shyam, Scientific Officer and PW-19 Dr. A.K. Minj, Senior Medical Officer, did not notice any external injury over the body of deceased, except over her neck on account of hanging. Further, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the crime in question. The learned trial Court has elaborately 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 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. 20. 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 11 persons/respondents No.2 to5 herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 21. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/complainant against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 5 herein is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh