1 2025:CGHC:51026-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 4 of 2014 Hetanlal Barman, S/o. Late Premlal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o. Village And Post Arjuni, P.S. And Tah. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Pin - 495552. ... Appellant versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Officer Incharge, P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2- Naresh Kumar, S/o. Ramcharan Miri, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Village Hardi Jarve, P.S. Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3- Ramcharan, S/o. Bhoklo Miri, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Village Hardi Jarve, P.S. Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4- Vinod Kumar Miri, S/o. Ramcharan Miri, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Hardi Jarve, P.S. Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.10.14 17:49:47 +0530 2 5- Ashok Kumar Miri, S/o. Ramcharan Miri, R/o. Village Hardi Jarve, P.S. Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6- Anjani Bai, W/o. Vinod Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Village Hardi Jarve, P.S. Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7- Shyambai, W/o. Ramcharan Miri, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Hardi Jarve, P.S. Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : None present. For State/ Respondents No.2 to 7. : Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (14.10.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Yesterday, the case was passed over for today but today also none appeared on behalf of the appellant. In that view of the matter, we have requested Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel present in the Court, to assist the Court. 2. This acquittal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2013, by which the Additional Sessions 3 Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, has acquitted the respondents No.2 to 7 herein for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrops. 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, marriage of Smt. Ranjeeta (now deceased) was solemnized with Naresh Kumar (respondent No.2 herein) in the year 2010 and thereafter all the respondents treated her cruelty for demand of dowry and on 03.03.2013, deceased consumed poison and died otherwise than normal circumstance within seven years of marriage, thereby the respondents No.2 to 7 have committed the aforesaid offences. Merg intimation was lodged vide Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9, FIR was registered vide Ex.P- 12, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Smt. Ranjeeta was subjected to post-mortem vide Ex.P-14, according to which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory arrest. After due investigation, the accused/ respondents No.2 to 7 were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 498-A & 304-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the accused persons 4 abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 4. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents and the trial Court, after appreciation of oral & documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused/respondents No.2 to 7 herein, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned amicus curaie, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondents No.2 to 7 herein, as brother of deceased Amit Kumar (PW-3) and father of deceased Hetan Lal (PW-4) have clearly stated that deceased was treated with cruelty for demand of dowry; therefore, it is a case where the accused/ respondents should have been convicted for the offence under of Section 304-B of I.P.C. The other circumstance that the death of deceased had occurred within seven years of marriage and death occurred otherwise than normal circumstance are also established and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 6. Mr. 5 6. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Section 304-B of I.P.C. which relates to dowry death:- “304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came into force with effect from 19-11-1986. 6 9. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C., the following essentials must be satisfied-  The death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.  Such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage.  Soon before the death of deceased, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her Husband or any relative of her Husband.  Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. Thus, if the aforesaid ingredients are established by the prosecution by leading appropriate reliable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. 10. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death, which reads as under:- "113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected 7 by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." The aforesaid provision shows that if the woman has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC, the court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:- 2. Definition of "dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 11. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B of I.P.C., one of the main ingredients of the offence, which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" 8 used in Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite vivid that as per the statement of brother of deceased Amit Kumar (PW-3) and father of deceased Hetan Lal (PW-4), it has clearly been established that the marriage of the deceased with Naresh Kumar (Respondent No.2) was solemnized in the year 2010 and deceased died on 03.03.2013 at 10:00 p.m. as per the FIR by poisoning. As such, it is established that the death of deceased had occurred within seven years of marriage otherwise than normal circumstance. 13. Now, the question is whether deceased was treated with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In this regard, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. brother of deceased and father of deceased. 14. The first witness Amit Kumar (PW-3), brother of deceased, has stated that her sister had informed him that the present respondents No.2 to 7 used to commit maar-peet with her and harass her and asked for the dowry. However, he has admitted that her sister was unwell and she was treated with 9 Witch doctor for 6 to 7 months and, as such, vague & general statement has been made and there is nothing in the statement of this witness that deceased was treated with cruelty soon before her death for demand of dowry. The next witness Hetan Lal (PW-4), father of deceased, has also made general statement that when her daughter used to come to her parental house, she used to complaint about respondents for committing maar-peet with her for demand of dowry. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of panchnama, he did not make any complaint to the police. He also admitted in para 12 of his statement that prior to death of her daughter, he did not make any complaint about the cruelty committed by respondents No.2 to 7 with her daughter for demand of dowry to social organization or police. Apart from Amit Kumar (PW-3) & Hetan Lal (PW-4), Investigating Officer - S.N.Gupta (PW-5) has also admitted that at the time of registration of merg intimation, the relatives of deceased did not make any complaint. Apart from this, no other witness has been examined to prove the harassment or cruelty committed by the respondents No.2 to 7 with the deceased for demand of dowry. As such, the allegations are vague & general and there is no specific allegation of cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. As such, 10 the finding recorded by the learned trial Court by acquitting the respondents No.2 to 7 is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and, therefore, we do not find any good ground to entertain this acquittal appeal. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appeared in this acquittal appeal as amicus curaie. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Ashok