1 2025:CGHC:55102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1146 of 2015 1 - Baliram Banjare S/o Indal Banjare, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Mohtara, Police Station Sarsiwa, Civil And Rev. Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sahodri Bai @ Dullapurhin W/o Baliram Banjare Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Police Station Sarsiwa, Civil And Rev. Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dilip Kumar S/o Baliram Banjare Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Police Station Sarsiwa, Civil And Rev. Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarsiwa, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent/State For Appellants : Mr. A.S.Rajput, Advocate. For State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 12.11.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 09.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.53/2014, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 304 -B read with Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 07 years each 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.10.2013, the deceased Anjali was found unwell at her in laws’ home under unusual circumstances having consumed poison. Her husband and brother-in- law took her to Sarsiwa Hospital, where her condition did not improve, so they took her to Sarangarh where the doctor declared her dead. On the basis of information sent by the Doctor of C.H.C. Sarangarh, morgue was recorded vide Ex. P/12 by Police of Police Station- Sarangarh and it was sent to Police Station- Sarsiwa for further action. Morgue No. 43/13 was recorded vide Ex. P/13 at Police Station- Sarsiwa. Panchnama of the body of the deceased was prepared in Sarangarh itself vide Ex.P/19 and the postmortem was conducted at C.H.C., Sarangarh vide Ex. P/14, the doctor gave opinion in his report that the deceased Anjali died due to consumption of poison and stated that the nature of her death as suicidal. On primary investigation, before the said incident and since the marriage, her in laws’ subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands consumed poison, as a result, she succumbed to death, therefore, an FIR (Ex. P/11) was registered for offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 306/34 of IPC against the accused persons. As per Ex. P/11, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.03.2014 against the accused persons. The 3 delay in lodging the report is stated to be due to the inquest. The deceased's viscera has been seized vide Ex. P/18 and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for alleged commission of offence under Section 304-B in alternate Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC in alternate Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, four witnesses examined by them in their defence. 4. Learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the present accused/appellants as mentioned in inaugural of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the facts, evidence and law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though, the entire prosecution story taken as it is the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC is not made out against the appellants. Learned trial Court has failed to see that there is delay in 4 lodging the F.I.R. and there is no sufficient explanation given in this regard. Learned trial Court has failed to see that there is no any evidence which shows that the deceased Anjali subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death. She committed suicide due to her own free will without any instigation, cruelty or harassment by the appellants. He further contended that deceased Anjali and appellant No.3/Dilip were in love with each other, as such, the love marriage was solemnized between the deceased and appellant No. 3/Dilip, therefore the question of demanding of dowry does not arise. There are lot of contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and learned trial Court has failed to see that the statement of I.O. (PW-7), in which he has categorically stated that the deceased family members have not stated against the deceased’s in laws’ that they have subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands consumed poison, as a result, she succumbed to death. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the aforesaid charges. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand1 and in the matter of Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana.2 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Anjali died within 07 years of marriage with appellant No. 3/Dilip Kumar and the witnesses have 1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214 5 categorically stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants for demand of dowry. So, the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted the accused/ appellants. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from the record of learned trial Court that it framed charges under Section 304-B of IPC in alternate Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC in alternate Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the present appellants/accused for offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC by acquitting the other co-accused persons of all the charges. 9. Before learned trial Court, it is an admitted position that deceased Anjali is the daughter-in-law of the appellants- Baliram and Sahodri Bai and she died on 15.10.2013 i.e., within the seven years of her marriage. 10. Mohanlal (PW-1) father of the deceased Anjali has stated in his deposition that her daughter’s marriage was solemnized with Dilip Kumar, he further stated that the accused persons subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of dowry and prior to the fateful incident, the husband of the deceased came home at late night after facing loss at gambling and after coming home he soon had quarrel with the deceased. On the next day morning, when his wife went to her daughter’s home, she was being apprised by her daughter/ deceased that all the accused persons led conspiracy as they made the deceased to drink phorate poison. In his 6 cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of defence that they belong to the same community and there is no dowry culture at the time of marriage in their society. There was a love affair between his daughter Anjali and the appellant- Dilip and they eloped and got married. He denied the suggestion that the appellant No. 3/Dilip had given Rs. 17,000/- to him for running his ration shop. Further, he admitted this fact that the appellant No. 3/Dilip had given a half tola gold necklace to his wife. 11. Netbai (PW-2) mother of the deceased has also stated in her deposition that the accused persons/appellants subjected her daughter to cruelty by harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of dowry. On the night of the Dussehra festival, the accused persons assaulted and abused her daughter and then she came to know about this fact from the villagers as the matter had already been the talk of the town. On the next day at about 11 am, she went to the house of accused persons and met her daughter Anjali, she was in her room in dizziness state, she asked her what had happened, then Anjali answered that her in laws’ have beaten and all the accused persons made her to drink phorate poison. In cross-examination, she admitted this fact there is no dowry culture at the time of marriage in their society and as her daughter and appellant- Dilip were having love affair, they eloped and got married. Further, she admitted this fact that her son-in-law/accused (Dilip) had given her half tola gold for its custody. 12. Shastri Lal (PW-4) uncle of the deceased has stated in his deposition that the deceased Anjali had stated him that accused persons/ appellants subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of dowry. He further stated that the deceased Anjali told him that they subjected her to persecution by saying that had 7 she performed normal marriage with the appellant-Dilip, they would have got the dowry. At that time, the deceased Anjali was a postpartum lady. So, they convened the village meeting where also the deceased told them that her in-laws subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing in the name of dowry. Then, the villagers settled the dispute by making both the deceased Anjali and Dilip understood by saying that they should live happily by keeping in their mind regarding the future of their child, Thereafter, the accused persons took the deceased Anjali along with him for celebrating the Dussehra festival and on 15.10.2013 at about 11 am all the accused persons made her to drink phorate poison, it may be on the name of dowry. In his cross-examination, he admitted this act that they eloped and got married. Further, admitted the suggestion that he and his brother’s family did not talk with the deceased Anjali since four years. Prahlad (PW-5) and Dwarika (PW-6) both are the villagers and stated that the deceased’s father Mohanlal (PW-1) told about the deceased Anjali. 13. From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of statements of PW-1 father, PW-2 mother and all the witnesses, it is clear that mother, father and uncle of the deceased have alleged that the accused persons administered the deceased to drink phorate poison, but it is clear that learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, but the learned trial Court finds that the deceased died within 07 years of her marriage and death was unnatural and thereby convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. 14. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Major Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), held in paras 18, & 8 19 which reads as under:- “18. Applying these principles to the instant case, we find that thee is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty and tha deceased Karamjit Kaour was subjected to dowry harassment “ soon before her death”. Except the demand of scooter, there is nothing on record to substantive the allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was demand of dowry. In our view, it can only be attributed to the husband Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “ soon before her death” by the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The Trial Court and the High Court have not analysed the evidence in the light of the essential ingredients of sEction 304-B IPC and the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC and the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is liable to be set aside.’’ “19. In the result, conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellant 2 Mohinder Kaur is on bail and her bail bonds stands discharged. Appellant 1 Major Singh who is in custody is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. 15. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Charan 9 Singh alias Charanjit Singh (Supra), held in para 13, which reads as under:- “13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:- 32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [ Shindo V. State of Punjab, (2011)11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346]. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [ K. 10 Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, 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 and harassment “ in connection with the demand of dowry.” 16. In the light of above judgments, in this present case, it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants that the deceased Anjali was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death regarding the demand of dowry, but learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts minutely and gave thereby wrong findings and thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges 18. The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellants are also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11 19. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL