1 2025:CGHC:52214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 671 of 2007 1 - Smt.Rukmani Pathak W/o Late Shri Onkar Prasad Pathak, Aged About 80 Years 2 - Ramnath Pathak S/o Late Shri Onkar Prasad Pathak, Aged About 60 Years 3 - Smt. Gangotri Bai Pathak W/o Shri Ramnath Pathak, Aged About 53 Years 4 - Rajendra Prasad Pathak S/o Shri Ramnath Pathak, Aged About 33 Years All are resident of Village Amora, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent 2 For Appellants : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. GA Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 27.10.2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th July, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST No.284/2006 whereby the accused/appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. RI for seven years. Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. RI for three years, pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of Kiran (since deceased) was solemnized with accused Rajendra Pathak on 20th May, 1997 and she died on 27th March, 2000 at her matrimonial home. In his written complaint dated 1.4.2000 to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, father of the deceased alleged that his daughter Kiran had told him about demand of money by the accused persons and beating 3 her brutally, so within three years of marriage he sent them money on many occasions. He stated that when in May, 1999 he went to attend the marriage of Rajesh (brother of accused Rajendra), the accused Rajendra kicked on the abdomen of the deceased and after one month she delivered a stillborn baby and her condition was also critical, therefore, she was brought to Bilaspur and admitted in Luthra Hospital where she remained for 17 days. During this period, accused Rajendra Pathak came but looking to her poor health condition she was not sent back, on which he threatened in presence of several people to see her when she comes back. Thereafter, he again came to Suhela and took her back on the pretext of operation of eyes of his mother. However, on 24th March, 2000 when he (complainant) reached Amora from Raipur to know about her well-being, he found Kiran in moribund state. Despite his request she was not taken to hospital for treatment and was treated through exorcism. In the night intervening 26th and 27th March, 2000 at around 3 am he received information from Amora regarding her illness, on which he immediately went there and saw her dead body. He accused them of killing his daughter and insisted for her postmortem before funeral but the accused persons paid no heed to it and performed her funeral. 03. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and certain letters were seized. After completing usual investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of 4 IPC against the accused persons followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined two witnesses. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. Since appellants No. 1 & 3 namely Smt. Rukmani Pathak and Smt. Gangotri Bai Pathak died during pendency of this appeal on 25th January, 2015 and 29th September, 2021 respectively, the instant appeal in respect of these appellants stands abated and survives in relation to appellants No. 2 & 4 namely Ramnath Pathak and Rajendra Prasad Pathak only. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court should have considered that tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in- 5 laws of the deceased wives in dowry deaths which need to be discouraged and further that overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents and the close relations of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations too. There is no evidence to prove that the appellants harassed or tortured the deceased for dowry. There are only general and omnibus allegations. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty by the appellants. There are number of omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which makes the whole case doubtful as against the present appellants. The necessary ingredients for attracting the offence u/s 304B of IPC are missing in this case. There is no evidence to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants in connection with demand of dowry. Learned trial Court seriously erred in placing reliance on the evidence based on a delayed written report as well as FIR. She would further contend that the deceased was suffering from heart and kidney disease since long which is evident from her medical report dated 17.9.1999 (Annexure A/2). Learned trial Court has committed error in not properly appreciating evidence of the witness who have categorically stated about this illness of the deceased. It ought to have considered the fact that mother of the deceased namely Smt. Durga Shama (PW-2) and other relatives were present 3-4 days before death of the deceased but they did not express any suspicion 6 regarding death of the deceased as she died in other than normal circumstances. PW-1 Arun Kumar Sharma did not say anything against the accused/appellants except appellant No.4 which is also omission. He specifically stated in para 22 of his deposition that nobody raised any objection for not conducting postmortem of the deceased. Learned trial Court should have considered the letters of the deceased and her family members as also her personal diary vide Ex.D/6 to Ex.D/13 which shows cordial relations of the deceased with her husband and in-laws. Thus, looking to the nature and quality of evidence adduced, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove charges leveled against the appellants and as such, they deserve to be acquitted of all these charges. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 29th August, 2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CRA No.1556/2013 in the matter of Chabi Karmakar and others Vs. State of West Bengal, judgment dated 20th September, 2024 in CRA No.249/2013 in Shoor Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, judgment dated 31st January, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1076/2014 in the matter of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and the judgment dated 22nd July, 2025 of this Court in CRA No.541/2007 in the case of Vimal Sen and others Vs. State of CG. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants would submit that in view of oral and 7 documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the appellants were charged under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. It is an admitted position in this case that deceased Kiran was married to appellant Rajendra Prasad Pathak on 20th May, 1997 and she died on 27th March, 2000 at her matrimonial home. 11. PW-1 Arun Kumar Sharma, father of the deceased, states that after marriage when his daughter Kiran came back to his house for the first time, she informed that her husband accused Rajendra slapped her on her ear with such a force that it got numb and that he beats her over trivial issues every now and then. He states that he had sent money order of Rs.2000/- to her father-in-law Ramnath Pathak (accused). In para 7 he states that 8-10 days after departure of Kiran with accused Rajendra to her matrimonial home, his wife fell ill, so she 8 was taken to Raipur with her mother Sadanbai and there she was treated for 8-10 days. When they did not get any message about well- being of Kiran for the last 25 days, his wife and mother Sadanbai went to Amora to see Kiran and there they saw her lying in moribund state. On being enquired, the neighbours informed that during this period no treatment was provided to Kiran except some ayurvedic treatment and exorcism. He states that his wife reached there on 24th March and his daughter Kiran died in the night intervening 26th and 27th March. In para 9 he states that though he insisted for postmortem of the deceased but no one paid any heed to it and her funeral was performed. After 8-10 days on 1.4.2000 he made an application Ex.P/1 to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur which bears his signature from A to A part. 12. PW-2 Smt. Durga Sharma, mother of the deceased, states that they had gone to Amora in connection with marriage of elder brother of accused Rajendra; at that time Kiran was sick and there some dispute arose between Kiran and her husband Rajendra and he kicked her on her abdomen which was witnessed by Ramamant, brother of the deceased. On being informed by Ramakant about this incident, she with her elder daughter made accused Rajendra understand not to beat her and he (Rajendra) assured them of not doing it again. She states that when her daughter Kiran was seriously ill, the accused persons did not get her medical treatment. 9 13. PW-3 Ramakant Sharma, brother of the deceased, states that accused Rajendra kicked Kiran on the abdomen in his presence as she asked him for going with her parents to Suhela, as a result of which she fell down from the bed. He denied the suggestion of the defence that when accused Rajendra was moving away in anger, she was jostled by him accidentally and fell down. 14. PW-4 Smt. Vimla Sharma, aunt of the deceased, states that Kiran used to tell her that her husband Rajendra demands dowry, motorcycle and money and beats her. However, in cross-examination she admits that Kiran told that she did not disclose this fact to her parents. This witness also admits that after 1-1 ½ months of death of Kiran she told parents of the deceased about this ill-treatment. 15. PW-5 Mithilesh Sharma, uncle of the deceased, states that after marriage when accused Rajendra for the first time came to the parental house of the deceased for taking her back and her father refused as she was ill, the accused Rajendra was saying near his betel shop that once she comes, she would not return and abused her filthily. Similar is the statement of PW-6 Khilendra @ Gajju, uncle of the deceased. This witness for the first time stated before the Court that the accused Rajendra abuses, beats and ill-treats Kiran and admits that no such statement was given to the police. 10 16. PW-7 Jitendra Dubey @ Kaju states that younger sisters of the deceased Leena Sharma and Seema Sharma used to write letters to him whereby they inform that accused Rajendra harass and torture Kiran. Article D is the said letter. He sent a letter to Arun Sharma i.e. Article A and B and informed him that Kiran is being tortured, she be taken back or else she would die. PW-9 Devi Singh states that Arun Sharma used to say that his daughter Kiran is in trouble. 17. DW-1 Fekudas and DW-2 Balaram Patel state that Kiran delivered a baby girl who died just after birth and since then Kiran remained sick and that she died due to illness. They state that at time of her death and last rites, there was no complaint by family members of the deceased. 18. The accused filed letters Ex.D/6 to D/12. These letters were written by the deceased Kiran, her husband Rajendra, her mother and sister on 30.8.1999, 17.12.1999, 12.3.2000 and 1.11.1999. The contents of these letters show that relations between the husband and wife were cordial. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shoor Singh and another (supra) held in paras12 & 13 as under: “12. To constitute a 'dowry death', punishable under Section 304- B IPC, following ingredients must be satisfied: 11 i. death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; iii. soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and iv. such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry. The phrase ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death. 13. When all the above ingredients of 'dowry death' are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that he has committed the offence of 'dowry death'. What is important is that the presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in connection with any demand for dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of 'dowry death'. The presumption, however, is in respect of commission of the offence of 'dowry death' by the accused when all the essential ingredients of 'dowry death' are proved beyond reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence, which means that to prove the essential ingredients of an offence of 'dowry death' the burden is on the prosecution.” 20. In light of above, if the facts and evidence emerging in the present case are appreciated it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to prove suicidal death of the deceased Kiran, rather the evidence on record goes to show that she died due to illness. As per 12 statements of mother and father of the deceased, they alleged dowry death against the accused persons on the ground that they did not provide her proper medical treatment. In this case, there is no specific allegation regarding demand of dowry or torture by the appellants in this connection. In order to constitute offence under Section 304B of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death of the woman must be by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances, it occurred within seven years of marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her husband's relatives in connection with demand of dowry. If these conditions are met, the law presumes the death to be a dowry death. However, in this case, the prosecution though succeeded in proving that Kiran died within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home but utterly failed to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused for or in connection with demand of dowry. Even the prosecution has failed to prove any cruelty on the part of the appellants to the deceased which constitute offence u/s 498A of IPC. However, learned trial Court without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding of guilt against the accused/appellants which being perverse and illegal is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment in respect of the appellants No. 2 & 4 namely Ramnath Pathak and Rajendra Prasad Pathak is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of 13 the charge under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 each of them is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, they on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 22. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.10.30 13:47:04 +0530