1 2025:CGHC:57614-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 146 of 2018 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Yogesh Dewangan S/o Madanlal Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhojpur, Champa, Police Station- Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Madanlal Dewangan, S/o Hiranand Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhojpur Champa, Police Station- Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sitabai W/o Madanlal Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bhojpur Champa, Police Station- Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For State/Appellant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate and Ms. Shital Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.27 10:38:29 +0530 2 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 26/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 18/09/2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.13/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, immediately after the solemnization of the marriage of the deceased, namely, Rajni Dewangan with respondent No.1-Yogesh Dewangan on 01/04/2012, she was harassed and maltreated by him and her in-laws’ on account of demand of dowry, and have committed the murder of her while pouring the kerosene oil upon her, on 18/12/2013. 3. From perusal of the record that, it appears that on 18/12/2013, when the deceased got burn injury, she was admitted into the Burn & Trauma Research Center at Bilaspur, and, a bare perusal of it would show that she was admitted on account of the accidental burn injury, who died during the course of treatment, on 25/12/2013, as evident from the postmortem report (Ex.P/23) conducted by Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-14). The Ward Boy of the concerned center has, therefore, lodged the merg intimation 3 (Ex.P/7) before the Police Station- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) and, during the course of investigation, her dying declaration (Ex.P/19) was recorded on 20/12/2013 by Dr. Manoranjan Kumar (PW-12) and, a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that she got burn, while cooking and all, who were present at home, including her husband and in-laws’ have come for her rescue. It reveals further from her dying declaration that no quarrel was occurred on the said fateful day, nor any one has burnt her. It, thus, appears from her alleged declaration (Ex.P/19) that, she was neither burnt by her husband or in-laws while pouring the kerosene oil upon her or was harassed and maltreated by any of them on account of demand of dowry, as alleged by her father in his written report (Ex.P/3), lodged on 05/01/2014 much after the sad demise of his daughter, alleging that, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law, namely, Geeta and Priyanka. 4. Pertinently, to be noted here further that since the date of the marriage of his daughter (deceased), solemnized on 01/04/2012, till her death, i.e. 25/12/2013, no allegation as such was ever alleged by the father of the deceased that, his daughter was being harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws’ on account of the demand of dowry. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon his alleged report (Ex.P/3) and, even the Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-14), who conducted the autopsy of the dead 4 body, has not found any injury on her body, except opining that she died because of the burn injuries. 5. In view of the aforesaid background and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant