1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 58 of 2021 Judgment Reserved on 13.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on 25.11.2025 • Bahorik Sahu, S/o Shidharam, aged about 57 Years, R/o Ashriya Khurdh, Tahsil Pandriya, District Kawardha, C.G. ...Appellant/Complainant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer at Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh). 2. Bhagat Ram Sahu, S/o Anjori Sahu, aged about 32 Years, 3. Anjori Ram Sahu, S/o Kejvaram Sahu, aged about 58 Years, 4. Santosh Sahu, S/o Jagdish Sahu, aged about 28 Years, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are resident at Village Shilli, Police Station Fastarpur, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant arises out of the judgment dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 20/2018, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted accused/respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.25 17:16:34 +0530 2 short, "IPC") in alternative under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC; and accused/respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC in alternative under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-4 Bahorik, father of the deceased- Pushpa, lodged a written report (Ex.P-8) stating therein that on 30.03.2018, at about 11:50 p.m., he received a phone call from one Prabhat Sahu informing him that his daughter/deceased, who was married to Bhagat Ram Sahu/respondent No.2, is unwell and asked him to come immediately. Thereafter, he along with his son PW-5 Push Kumar, went to village Silli, where they came to know that the deceased has set herself on fire and has been taken to the District Hospital, Mungeli. When they reached Mungeli, the deceased was being referred to Bilaspur and at that time, she informed about the incident. At the Burn and Trauma Research Centre, Bilaspur, the doctor informed them that the deceased has sustained 99% burns and is unlikely to survive. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to her injuries on 31.03.2018 at 7:50 am. Thereafter, the police registered an FIR (Ex.P-9) against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4. During the course of investigation, merg intimation was recorded vide Exs.P-17 & P-18 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-11. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by PW-13 Dr. C.B. Mishra, who gave his report vide Ex.P-23. According to PW-13, Dr. C.B. Mishra, the cause of death of the deceased was extensive first to second degree burns resulting in hypovolemic and neurogenic shock. In his opinion, the death appeared to be accidental or suicidal, however, he recommended further investigation 3 for final determination. From the spot, one liquor bottle, burnt clothes of the deceased, one plastic jerrycan containing the smell of kerosene and one matchbox were seized. However, the seized articles were not sent to the FSL for chemical examination. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 herein of said charges leveled against them. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant would submit that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 of said charges by recording perverse findings. She would further submit that from the statement of PW-4 father of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased had informed him that the accused persons/respondent Nos.2 to 4 had poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and despite such clear and cogent evidence, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondent Nos.2 to 4, would support the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. 4 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Now, the question for consideration is whether the accused persons/respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the authors of the crime in question or not. 11. PW-4 father of the deceased has stated that on 30.03.2018 at about 10:00 p.m., one Prabhat Sahu informed his son that the deceased is unwell. Thereafter, he, along with his son, went to village Silli, where they came to know that the deceased had been taken to the District Hospital, Mungeli. On reaching there, the doctor informed him that the deceased had sustained 99% burn injuries and was being referred to Bilaspur. While being taken to Bilaspur, the deceased allegedly told him that the accused persons had locked her in a room, poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire; however, in the written report (Ex.P-8) lodged by father of the deceased, there is no specific mention that the deceased had named any particular person as the one who actually committed the alleged act. In cross- examination, PW-4 father of the deceased admitted that he had become unconscious at Mungeli Hospital when his daughter/deceased was being taken for treatment. He further admitted that when the police arrived three to four hours after the death of the deceased, he did not disclose them any information what he knew about the incident nor did he state that the deceased had informed him about the incident. Contradicting the statement of PW-4 father of the deceased, PW-5 Push Kumar, who was also present at that time, admitted in his cross-examination that his father (PW-4) was unable to get into the government vehicle in which the deceased was being taken from District Hospital, Mungeli to Bilaspur because he had become unconscious at that time. He further admitted that when his father (PW-4) 5 tried to get into the said vehicle, respondent No.4- Santosh Sahu, had pulled him aside and made him sit in another vehicle. PW-5 Push Kumar also admitted that when he himself asked the deceased about the incident, she did not inform him anything whereas in written report (Ex.P-8), it is mentioned that deceased had informed him about the incident. 12. Thus, from the above evidence, it is quite clear that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-4 father of the deceased and his son - PW-5 Push Kumar and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the contents of written report (Ex.P-8). Furthermore, PW-7 Dr. Shashikant Sahu, who first examined the deceased, stated that she had suffered 99% burns and was not in a position to see or give any dying declaration. Likewise, PW-13 Dr. C.B. Mishra, who conducted the postmortem examination, opined that the death of the deceased appeared to be accidental or suicidal. It is pertinent to mention here that if the deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries of such magnitude, it is doubtful how she could have narrated the incident to her father (PW-4), especially when the medical evidence indicates that she was not in a position to speak. Moreover, the clothes of the deceased seized from the spot vide Ex.P-3 were not sent to the FSL for chemical examination by the prosecution to ascertain the presence of kerosene oil on it. This apart, both PW-7 Dr. Shashikant Sahu and PW-13 Dr. C.B. Mishra admitted that no suspicious article or smell of kerosene was found on the body of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused persons had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire. Besides the above, in the written report (Ex. P-8) lodged by PW-4 father of the deceased, there is no specific mention of any demand of dowry made by the accused persons. It has further come on record that the deceased had 6 been married for more than ten years and had three children and neither she nor her family members ever made any complaint regarding any demand of dowry either to the community or to the police during that period. Rather, the evidence on record would suggest that after the death of the deceased, PW-4 father of the deceased disclosed such facts for the first time and made exaggerated statements. 13. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire material on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 of the charges leveled against them. 14. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondents No.2 to 4 the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh