1 2025:CGHC:49548-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 55 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pathariya, District Mungeli (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - (Died And Deleted) Tikam Singh Rajput (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 09-09-2025) 2 - Umendra Kumar Tandan S/o Chandram Tandan Aged About 48 Years Address Community Health Center, Pathariya, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (CG) ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant/State :Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents :Ms. Anshu Ratre, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 06.10.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.08.2016, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (CG) in Sessions Trial No.04/2015, SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.10.07 10:37:02 +0530 2 whereby, the respondent No.1-Tikam Singh Rajput (since deceased) has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC, while the respondent No.2- Umendra Kumar Tandan, under Section 304 Part-II and, in alternatively, under Section 304-A of IPC. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased- Jaikumari was solemnized with the respondent No.1-Tikam Singh Rajput (since deceased) in the year 2006 at village- Siltara and after the solemnization of her marriage, she started living with her husband at village- Amalidiha. It is alleged further that after one year of her marriage, she was being maltreated and harassed by her husband- Tikam Singh Rajput for demand of money and, had forcefully administered the poisonous medicines to her in the intervening night of 19.02.2015 and 20.02.2015, owing to which, she got serious and was admitted for treatment at Community Health Center, Pathariya of District Mungeli. It is alleged further that she was treated by the respondent No.2- Umendra Kumar Tandan, though he is not a Doctor, yet has treated her for the period commencing with effect from 20.02.2015 upto 25.02.20215 and because of his negligent treatment given to her, she died on 05.03.2015. 3. At the outset, it is to be noted that during the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No.1-Tikam Singh Rajput, the husband of the deceased- Jaikumari has died on 22.03.2024, therefore, the appeal preferred against him, has already been abated. 4. Insofar as the respondent No.2- Umendra Kumar Tandan is concerned, 3 it was the allegation of the prosecution that he was not a Doctor, yet has treated her negligently for the period commencing with effect from 20.02.2015 upto 25.02.2015 in the Community Health Center, Pathariya and only because of his negligent treatment, she died on 05.03.2015. 5. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the burden is heavily upon the prosecution to establish the said fact, however, none of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the parents of the deceased, have stated that she was treated by the respondent No.2 at the Community health Center, Pathariya, nor have stated that because of his negligent treatment, their daughter has died on 05.03.2015. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that, she was treated in the said Hospital for the period commencing with effect from 20.02.2015 upto 25.02.2015, but, no document as such has been placed on record, showing that the deceased was treated by him for the said period, nor even any document has been placed on record showing that the said respondent was an employee in the said Hospital. 6. Pertinently, to be noted here further that, when the statements of the parents of the deceased and the others’ were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was stated by them that the deceased was treated by the said respondent at home. In view of such an eventuality, it is difficult to hold that the deceased was treated by the said respondent in the Community Health Center, Pathariya, as alleged by the prosecution. That apart, as reflected from the statement of the father (PW-1) of the deceased, it appears that his daughter after a preliminary treatment in the said Hospital was feeling well and went to her in-laws’ 4 house at village- Amaldiha. Therefore, it cannot even be said that she died on the said day because of his negligent treatment given to her. 7. In view of the aforesaid background and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence placed on record showing that the respondent No.2- Umendra Kumar Tandan has treated her, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE sunita