1 2025:CGHC:19168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 68 of 2016 Sunil Kumar S/o Kashiram Dheewar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Newsa, Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 28/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 2 dated 26.12.2015 passed by the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.39/2015, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence In Default U/S 498-A of the IPC RI for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.3,000/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 01 month 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.07.14 at 9.15 pm, Sufalram Dhiwar informed the police station Sipat that his brother Bhagwat's daughter Satya Bai was married to Sunil Dhiwar of village Nevsa. They have a one year old daughter. Satya Bai was very unhappy with her husband. He used to beat Satya Bai after drinking alcohol and she was living there. Due to which Satya Bai slept in the room with her daughter and her sister Sona Bai. At around 2.30 in the night, on hearing the crying of the child, Satya Bai's brother Sankatmochan went to the room then Satya Bai was not in the said room and saw that Satya Bai was found hanging in the adjacent room, who had died. Satya Bai committed suicide by hanging herself, being fed up of her husband's suffering. 3. On the above information, Assistant Sub Inspector Yugal Sharma 3 (PW 5) of Police Station Sipat registered the case bearing Case No. 54/14 (Ex.P.7) and information of the same was sent to the Executive Magistrate. 4. During the inquest, Executive Magistrate T.L. Tumrali (PW 11) on 20.07.2014 attended the spot of incident Nevsa Police Station Ratanpur, inspected the site of incident and in the presence of Panchans, map Panchnama proceedings were done as per Ex.P.2. Father of the deceased Bhagwat Prasad Dhiwar, brother Sankatmochan Dhiwar and uncle Sufalaram Dhiwar present on the spot were also questioned, when they said that the deceased was troubled due to beating by her husband, their statement was recorded. 5. After Panchnama, the body of the deceased was sent to Primary Health Center for postmortem examination. Dr. R.S. Maravi (PW- 12), who conducted the post mortem of the deceased’s body. He stated that on 20.07.2014, the body of deceased Satyabai was brought for post-mortem. On examination, he found that the mark on the neck was brown in colour and was between the beard and the thyroid cartilage. The mark of the hanging knot was on the left side. There was a yellowish white mark in the sub-areolar tissue inside the mark of hanging on the neck. The length of the mark of hanging on the neck of the deceased was 17 cm and the width was 4 3 cm. A mark of petechial haemorrhage was found on the leg of the deceased. During the autopsy of the deceased, the head was intact, and membranes, larynx was congested, right lung was congested, heart and upper membranes were engorged with fluid. Blood was present in the right vertical of the heart. Curves were healthy and intestines were intact. He further stated that the injury marks on the neck were of antemortal nature. The deceased died due to “asphyxia” by hanging. He opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia. The said PM report is Ex.P.-14. 6. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the charge against the present appellant. 7. In order to prove the charges against the appellant/accused, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, one defence witness was examined by the appellant. 8. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as described above. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the 5 learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the trial Court erred in conviction to the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, which is not attracted as per allegation. He further contended that prior to incident, there was no allegation against appellant that he has committed any cruelty whereas they were passing their life very peacefully, neither they were quarrel nor committed marpit. If the appellant has committed any cruelty then deceased or deceased's parents should complain before the society or Police station. He also contended that the deceased went her mother’s house in the name of visit & after passing some days, she hanged & died, whereas the appellant dropped her mother house very peacefully there was no any disputes. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2015 may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 6 of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 12. It is unfortunate that the unnatural death of deceased was caused within 7 years of the marriage. As regards harassment and cruelty to the deceased, who can explain this better than her family members and in this context, this Court carefully gone through the evidence of Bhagwat (PW-6), father of the deceased has stated that after marriage, her daughter lived in her in-laws' village Nevsa. The deceased used to tell him that her husband used to beat her after consuming alcohol and used to tell her to go and get money from her parents and used to beat her. 13. Sankatmochan (PW-7), brother of the deceased has stated that in village Nevsa, his sister had a dispute with his brother-in-law/appellant. The appellant used to quarrel after consuming alcohol. When the accused used to quarrel, her sister used to come home and after convincing her, send her back. The accused used to tell her sister that she has not brought a fan. The accused used to ask money from her sister for consuming alcohol and then quarrel. The deceased had come four days before the incident. The deceased told that the accused had beaten and abused her and thrown her out of the house. The accused abused his sister over the phone and fought with her. The day the argument 7 happened, his sister hanged herself that same night. 14. In his cross-examination (para-5), this witness has stated that when his sister died, she wrote with chalk at the spot of the incident that she should not be torn apart and also wrote that her daughter please forgive her. 15. Suphalram (PW-8), uncle of the deceased has stated that before incident, Satya Bai/deceased has never told about harassment by her husband/appellant. In para-4, this witness has stated that it is wrong to say that the appellant was committing marpit with the deceased after consuming alcohol. 16. As regards the unnatural death of deceased, this Court finds from the evidence of Dr. R.S. Maravi (PW-12), who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased and gave his report under Ex.P/14 opining the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to hanging, as such, death of deceased was unnatural. 17. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Section 498A of the IPC defines the offence of cruelty as under- "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be 8 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 18. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to establish offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the prosecution must establish, (i) That, woman must be married: (ii) She has been subjected to cruelty or harassment and (iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative of her husband. 9 19. The word 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC has been explained in Explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC. It consists of two clauses namely clause (a) and clause (b). To attract Section 498A of the IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife to coerce her or cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498A of the IPC. Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC contemplates harassment of woman to coerce or any relation of her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The complainant if wants to come within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, she can succeed if it is proved that there was an unlawful demand by the husband or any of his relatives with respect to money or of some valuable security. 20. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, I will now proceed to consider the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case qua whether ingredients for offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out against the appellant or not? 21. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized before four years of the incident and on 20.07.2014 at 10 her parental house, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Furthermore, as per PM report (Ex.P/14) of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging and same is antemortal in nature, which is duly proved by Dr. R.S. Maravi (PW-12), who conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased. 22. It is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the deceased was living at her parental house at the time of incident and there is no dying declaration of the deceased and also there is no direct evidence of torture either physically or mentally against the accused/appellant, it is also pertinent to mention here that father of the deceased (PW-6) deposed that there is illicit relation of his son-in-law (appellant) with another girl and after consuming the alcohol, appellant used to beaten his wife/deceased, but in post mortem report, there is no injury found by the doctor in the body of the deceased. It is also important fact that there is no mentioned in the merg intimation (Ex.P-7) and inquest report (Ex.P-2) that accused was demanding dowry with his wife or parents of his wife. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted the fact that 15 days before death of her daughter, appellant has came in his house for the purpose of marriage ceremony of another daughter and his son and the appellant also resided in his house 11 near about 8-10 days and participated in the said ceremonial function at that time there was no dispute took place with the appellant. It is also important fact that father of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that in his caste, there is no custom of dowry. The trial Court has also acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. 23. Sankat Mochan (PW-7), brother of the deceased deposed that there was dispute between his sister – Satya Bai (deceased) and her husband (appellant) and after consuming liquor, the appellant was committing marpit with his sister-Satya Bai, but he also admitted the fact that his marriage was 15 days before his sister's death and also admitted that in his marriage ceremony, the appellant was also came and resided his house about 8-10 days and during that time, there was no any dispute arisen with the appellant. 24. Uncle of the deceased Saphal Ram (PW-8) deposed that deceased- Satya Bai did not said anything regarding harassment by her husband (appellant). Therefore, it is crystal clear that only allegation is that after consuming liquor, the appellant was committing marpit with his wife. The deceased Satya Bai has committed suicide by hanging herself at her parental house and in the post mortem report, there is no internal or external injury was found by the docotor who examined the dead body of the 12 deceased, but the learned trial Court only on this ground that the accused/appellant after consuming alcohol, beat his wife/deceased and behaved cruelty with her, convicted him under Section 498-A of IPC. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is not in accordance with the provision of Section 498-A of IPC. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2015 is set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him by extending him benefit of doubt. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bond shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 26. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant