1 2025:CGHC:59429-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.85 of 2016 D Shrinivasa Rao S/o Shri Guruvulu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No. 06, Udyan Marg, Chobey Collony, P.S. Sharaswati Naga, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 – L. Dileshwar Rao S/o L. Krishna Rao, Aged About 31 Years R/o Anpurna Colony, Q.No.52/8, P.S. Torva, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - L. Nilebani W/o Shri L. Krishna Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o Anpurna Colony, Q.No. 52/8, P.S. Torva, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Torva, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 41 of 2016 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ---Appellant Versus 1 - L. Dileshwar Rao S/o Krishna Rao Aged About 30 Years R/o Annapurna Colony, Qtr. No. 52/8, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2 - L. Krishna Rao (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 18.08.2025 3 - N. Neelbeni W/o L. Krishna Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o Annapurna Colony, Qtr. No. 52/8, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.12.09 10:48:56 +0530 2 In Acquittal Appeal No.85 of 2016 For Appellants : Shri Maneesh Sharma appears along with Ms. Anshu Ratre, Advocates For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None, though served For Respondent No.3/State Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate In Acquittal Appeal No.41 of 2016 For Appellant/State : Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 3 : Shri Shailendra Dubey appears along with Ms. Swati Kumari, Advocates For Respondent No.2 : Deleted vide order dated 18/08/2025. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 08/12/2025 1) Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 27/08/2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.152/2011, whereby, the respondents, who are husband and in-laws of the deceased-Sudha Rani, have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2) During the pendency of these appeals, the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, L. Krishna Rao has died on 25/08/2016, therefore, the instant appeals have already been abated against him. 3) From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased-Sudha Rani was performed with the respondent No.1-L. Dileshwar Rao on 19/04/2009, who died on 10/06/2011, owing to which, an information was given by her father-in-law-L. Krishna Rao 3 (since deceased) before the Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and, based upon which, an inquiry was conducted and during the course of inquiry, it was revealed that after 4 to 5 months of her marriage, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in- laws on account of demand of dowry. An FIR (Ex.P-10) was, therefore, registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 304- B/34 of IPC on 13/06/2011. Inquest of the dead body of the deceased- Sudha Rani was conducted on 10/06/2011 vide Ex.P-8, where, no injury was depicted over her body and that was also revealed from the postmortem report (Ex.P-1) conducted by Dr. Manish Shrivastava (PW-5). According to the said doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body, cause of the death of the deceased was opined to be cardio-respiratory arrest, but unable to give definite opinion, therefore, viscera was preserved and sent for the chemical examination and, according to the FSL Report (Ex.P-18), the deceased was found to be dead while consuming poisonous substance [Phosphamidon (organophosphorus)]. 4) Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that after 4 to 5 months of her marriage, she was maltreated and harassed by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry, but, a perusal of the record would, however, show that on 27/10/2009, she left her matrimonial home and therefore, her husband, the respondent No.1 herein, has lodged the report before the Police Station, Torwa vide Ex.D-4 intimating that his wife has left the house on 27/10/2009 and, similar was the information given by him vide Ex.D-5 to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and, thereafter, an application was made by him on 4 20/11/2009 before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur intimating the fact that his wife has left the home and wanted to keep her back, but since the alleged matter was non-cognizable in nature, therefore, no action was taken as revealed from the report made under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. by the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur vide Ex.D-3. 5) From perusal of the aforesaid facts, it, thus, appears that the deceased has left the matrimonial home on 27/10/2009 and, her husband has repeatedly requested before the concerned police authorities in order to keep her back and, it appears further that when no action was taken on his report, made on 20/11/2009, an application was made by him before the Family Court, Bilaspur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, as revealed from the order-sheet (Ex.D-7), dated 03/03/2010. Perusal of the said proceeding would reveal the fact that a conciliation proceeding was conducted and, according to the report dated 19/03/2010 (Ex.D-10), submitted by the concerned Conciliator, it appears that the deceased was adamant to live separately from her in-laws and wanted to live only with her husband at her place of duty at Korba. In view of the adamancy of the deceased, the conciliation proceeding was failed. Be that as it may, subsequently, the said proceeding, as was initiated by the husband of the deceased under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was ended on 02/05/2010, as revealed from the order-sheet, dated 02/05/2010 (Ex.D-11), as they settled their dispute outside the Court. 6) It, thus, appears that since 02/05/2010, when the alleged proceedings came to an end on compromise, the deceased started living with her 5 husband, who subsequently found to be dead on 10/06/2011, as observed hereinabove, while consuming poisonous substance. The deceased has, thus, lived with her husband for a considerable period of more than a year, but during the said period, commencing with effect from 02/05/2010 till her sad demise, i.e.10/06/2011, no report alleging as such that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband or in-laws, was lodged either by the deceased or her parents against the respondent No.1-L. Dileshwar Rao, the husband of the deceased, or his parents. Therefore, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband and in-laws soon before her death, so as to hold them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 IPC, as alleged by the prosecution. 7) Consequently, these appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane