1 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:20471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1277 of 2022 {Arising out of judgment dated 30.07.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.42/2019 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G.} 1 - Ajay Alias Tikaram Yadav S/o Late Mohan Lal Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Anjoripali, P.S. Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 05.05.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by the appellant herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.05.08 11:22:33 +0530 2 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.42/2019, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the two other co- accused persons namely, Sahetarin Yadav and Tikeshwar Yadav has convicted the appellant herein for offence under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the deceased and the appellant got married in the year 2018 and within 01 year of marriage, the appellant harassed and tortured his wife Simli Yadav (the deceased) in connection with demand for dowry, due to which she committed suicide by hanging herself on 13.05.2019 and, thereby, the appellant is said to have committed the aforesaid offence. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant himself lodged marg intimation (Ex.P/9) at police station Kharsiya and the FIR was registered vide Ex.P/8. Spot Map and inquest Report were prepared vide Ex.P/4 & Ex.P/2 respectively. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Hemlata Rathiya (PW-08) and Dr. Shishir V. Rathore (PW-13) vide postmortem report Ex.P/6 and the cause of death has been stated to be asphyxia due to complete airway blockage due 3 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) to hanging and nature of death is opined to be suicidal in Dr. Hemlata Rathiya’s (PW-08) deposition. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents, whereas, the appellant in support of his defence has examined none but exhibited three documents, Exs.D1 to D3. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and 4 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) order of sentence. 6. Mr. F.S Khare, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though Simli Yadav (the deceased) died within one year of marriage in other than normal circumstances but the prosecution has failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. In alternative, he would submit that the appellant has been awarded with 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, whereas the minimum sentence under Section 304B of the IPC is 07 years, as such, the sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 304B of the IPC may be reduced to the minimum sentence i.e. 07 years. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature and it is not a case where the sentence of the appellant can be reduced, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Section 304B of the IPC which relates to dowry death:- “304B. 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. 10. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied- 6 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) • 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. 11. 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 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 7 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra1, while considering the term "soon before her death", has held that term of the period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question and there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. It has been further held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. 13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the first ingredient that the death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances is established, as she had died by hanging, which is other than normal circumstances, as proved by Dr. Hemlata Rathiya (PW-08) and Dr. Shishir V. 1 2012 (11) SCC 397 8 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) Rathore (PW-13) in postmortem report (Ex.P/6). Also, the marriage had taken place between the appellant and the deceased one year prior to the date of incident as such, the death have occurred within seven years of the marriage. Now, the next question is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant herein soon before her death, in connection with demand for dowry? In this regard, the mother of the deceased - Shivkumari (PW-01), brother of the deceased - Kailash Prasad Yadav (PW-02), father of the deceased – Bhujbal (PW-03) and maternal uncle of the deceased - Shivcharan (PW-04) have been examined and they have clearly and unequivocally stated that immediately after 1-2 months of marriage, the appellant had started harassing the deceased and was demanding motorcycle in dowry. All of the said witnesses have been subjected to detailed cross- examination but nothing has been brought out to hold that they are telling lie and are making false statement before the Court and they all have clearly stated that the appellant was demanding motorcycle in dowry soon after the marriage. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in para 26 of the impugned judgment that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with 9 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) dowry soon before her death is a correct finding of fact, which is based on evidence available on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. 14. Now, the next question would be whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years as imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-accused for having committed offence under Section 304B of the IPC is justified or same is liable to be reduced to the minimum sentence of 07 years, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 15. Sub-section (2) of Section 304B of the IPC provides that whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 07 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and in the instant case the learned trial Court has imposed 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the appellant that too without recording any special/specific reason. Also, the appellant was only 28 years old at the time when incident took place and he has not been found involved in committing jail offence post conviction and the appellant is in jail since 29.05.2019, it would be appropriate to convert the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court to 07 years 10 (CRA No. 1277 of 2022) rigorous imprisonment for committing offence under Section 304B of the IPC. 16. As such, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!