1 2025:CGHC:47110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 956 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Shobhnath Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Madhnee Sahu W/o Shobhnath Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pushpa Sahu W/o Suresh Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh. 4 - Suresh Sahu S/o Shobhnath Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shobhnath Sahu S/o Parmeshwar Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For State/Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.09.17 14:15:43 +0530 2 15/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (CG) in Sessions Case No.13/2017 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under sections 498A, 306/34 of IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the father of the deceased (PW-4) lodged a written complaint on 16.07.2016, alleging that his daughter, Pinky (the deceased), was married to respondent No.1, Rajesh Kumar, in 1998. Initially, she was treated well, but later she was allegedly harassed and assaulted by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry, including a motorcycle. The deceased used to narrate these incidents to her family members when she visited them. Respondent No. 5 (the father of respondent No.1) told the complainant, Ramsurat Sahu (PW-4), and his wife, Bhagwati Sahu (PW-5), that the deceased had refused to file a false complaint against a person named Gajanand, and therefore they should take her back. Consequently, the complainant took the deceased back with him. Following this, the deceased reported the matter to the Department of Women and Child Development, based on which the case 3 was sent to Court. After a court settlement on 08.07.2016, Respondents No.1 and his family took the deceased back to their house. On 11.07.2016, the complainant came to know that the deceased was found dead in a well. The allegation against the respondents is that they were harassing the deceased for dowry, thereby abetting her to commit suicide, which ultimately led her to commit suicide by drowning in a well. Based on the written complaint, FIR (Ex.P-7) was lodged and charges under Sections 498A, 306/34 of IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused/respondents. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents and articles A-1 to A-7. The statements of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondents of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the Merg lodged by the accused/husband 4 Rajesh Kumar stating illicit relationship of the deceased/wife Pinky. He submits that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry thereby abetted her to commit suicide, which ultimately led her to commit suicide by drowning in a well, which could not be rebutted, yet the trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence come on record, passed the judgment of acquittal, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submits that the trial Court has passed the judgment after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, which does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of “State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against 5 acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased Pinky was married to respondent No.1 Rajesh in the year 1998. They have one son and two daughters. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased committed suicide by drowning in a well on 11.07.2016 i.e. after about 18 years of marriage. 10. The allegation against the respondents is that they subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry which ultimately led her to commit suicide by drowning in a well. The main witnesses regarding abetment to suicide are father of the deceased, Ramsurat Sahu (PW- 4), mother Bhagwati Sahu (PW-5) and brother Jagdeep Kumar Sahu (PW-3), who have stated that after 3 years of marriage of the deceased, the respondents subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry. While discussing in detail in paragraphs 39 to 42 the trial Court found that no specific date and time has been stated by any of the witnesses. Admittedly there is no police complaint in this regard for a married life of around 18 years. No specific role has been 6 assigned to any of the accused as to who did what. General allegation of committing cruelty has been levelled against all the accused persons which is not liable to be believed. There are contradictions in the statements of PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5. Daughter Manju (PW-6) and son Devendra Kumar Sahu (PW-8) of the deceased have denied any ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused persons. They have stated that their mother was living happily with her in-laws without any problem. They have also denied that the deceased was being pressured to lodge a false complaint against Gajanand. The trial Court elaborately discussing the entire evidence recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to draw a contrary finding. 11. So far as the Merg made by the husband stating illicit relationship of the deceased is concerned, it does not fall in the category of evidence as no witness has stated so before the Court and the Merg recorded before the police is not admissible as substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, by accepting this against the accused, it cannot be presumed against them that they might have instigated the deceased for this reason. 12. In the light of the principle of law laid down by their 7 Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment and considering the entire facts and evidence of the case, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. Therefore, there is no need for any interference in it. 13. Thus, this appeal against the acquittal is dismissed. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai