1 2025:CGHC:55032-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 43 of 2010 Shri Bhusan Agrawal, S/o. Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 35 years, R/o. Ganesh Chowk, New Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattigarh, through- P.S. Chhawani, District- Durg (C.G.) (prosecution) 2. Satyanarayan Agrawal S/o. Hari Prasad Agrawal, aged about- 52 years, 3. Uttam Sawaria S/o. Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 21 years. 4. Sachin Sawaria S/o. Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about- 29 years 5. Sunita Agrawal W/o. Sachin Agrawal, aged about- 25 years, All R/o. Gandhiganj, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Ms. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. N.Naha Roy, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari and Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocates ACQA No. 262 of 2010 The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.13 16:52:22 +0530 2 Versus 1. Satyanarayan Agrawal, Aged about - 52 years, S/o.- Hari Prasad Agrawal 2. Uttam Sanvadia, Aged about - 21 years, S/o.- Satyanarayan Agrawal 3. Sachin Sanvadia, Aged about - 29 years, S/o.- Satyanarayan Agrawal 4. Urmila Devi (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 12.11.2025 5. Sunita Agrawal, Aged about - 25 years, W/o.- Sachin Agrawal All are R/o.- Gandhi Ganj Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.Naha Roy, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari and Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for State. Also heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari and Ms. Minakshi Gupta, learned counsel for respective respondents. 2. These petitions, being criminal revision under Section 397/401 and leave to appeal under Section 378(3) and memorandum of appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. are directed against the judgment dated 03.12.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge 3 Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 175/2004, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents- Satyanarayan Agrawal, Uttam Sawaria, Sachin Sawaria, Sunita Agrawal from the charges punishable under Sections 304-B, 498- A of the IPC. 3. Though none appeared on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant to press the revision on repeated calls, considering the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2009, we proceed to hear the matter. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- a) The deceased, Smt. Sunita, was the youngest among five sons and a daughter of Santosh Kumar Agarwal (PW-12), resident of Bhilai, District Durg. She was married to Ravi Sanwadia, the second son of accused Satyanarayan Sanwadia, resident of Raigarh, on 26.05.2003. According to the prosecution, her father had spent about Rs.5,95,000/- on the marriage, however, her in-laws were dissatisfied. Within a few days of the marriage, the deceased frequently telephoned her parental home, complaining that her in-laws were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry, taunting and torturing her over trivial issues, abusing and assaulting her, and demanding cash as additional dowry. (b) About a month before her death, her father-in-law Satyanarayan Sanwadia telephoned her father, simply telling him 4 to come and take his daughter back. Consequently, Bhushan Agarwal (PW-1), brother of the deceased, went to Raigarh. Upon his arrival, the accused misbehaved with him and insisted that he take his sister away. When Bhushan spoke privately with the deceased, she informed him that she was being harassed, abused, and beaten by her in-laws. Despite her pregnancy, she was denied medical treatment. She further told him that unless she was taken back to Bhilai, her in-laws would kill her. About 15– 20 days later, the deceased again called her parents from a doctor’s dispensary in Raigarh, reiterating that her in-laws would kill her if she was not taken back. (c) On that same day, according to the prosecution, her mother- in-law Urmila (accused) kicked her in the stomach, and her sister- in-law Sunita pushed her, causing her to fall and experience severe abdominal pain. The deceased was then taken to a doctor by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. However, before leaving, they made her write a note stating that if anything happened to her, her in-laws would not be responsible. On learning of this, her father Santosh Kumar Agarwal went to Raigarh with Satyanarayan Agarwal, Bhushan Agarwal, Santosh Khetan, and Tarachand Agarwal. In the presence of several witnesses, including Matu Ram Agarwal (PW-5) and Niranjan Agarwal, a discussion took place. The deceased, in everyone’s presence, repeated that her in-laws – father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother- in-law, sister-in-law, and husband – harassed, abused, and beat 5 her, and her husband demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as dowry. She further stated that her in-laws had made her write a letter absolving them of responsibility if anything happened to her. Accused Satyanarayan admitted to tearing that letter. Thereafter, with the consent of the accused, the deceased’s father brought her to Bhilai on 11.10.2003. (d) Considering her condition, she was examined by Dr. Madhuri Gupta (PW-4), who observed that the deceased had been tortured and was in a serious condition, with little chance of survival. She advised immediate hospitalization. The deceased was admitted to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, on 14.10.2003, but she died at 12:40 a.m. during the intervening night of 14/15.10.2003. (e) The deceased’s brother, Bhushan Agarwal, informed the Police Station Bhilai Nagar, where inquest intimation no. 0/2003 was registered on 15.10.2003 (Ex. P-1). The deceased’s father submitted a written report (Ex. P-11) at Police Station Cantonment, on the basis of which FIR No. 1080/2003 was registered under Sections 304-B and 498-A/34 IPC against the accused. The Executive Magistrate (PW-19) conducted the inquest proceedings (Ex. P-2) and sent the body for post-mortem to Government District Hospital, Durg. On 15.10.2003 at 1:10 p.m., Dr. A.P. Sawant and Dr. Sugam Sawant performed the post- mortem (Ex. P-7) and opined that the deceased died due to swelling of the body and pre-eclampsia of pregnancy, leading to 6 cardio-respiratory failure. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to her brother Bhushan Agarwal (Ex. P-4). (f) The investigating officer recorded witness statements and seized medical documents relating to the deceased’s treatment (Ex. P-20) from Sector-9 Hospital through seizure memo (Ex. P- 6). The accused were arrested on 06.04.2004 (Ex. P-14 to P-19). During the house search (Ex. P-9), several articles belonging to the deceased were seized, including silver boxes containing vermilion, toe rings, an empty jewelry box, a brown purse, and six sarees. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the respondents and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record by the impugned judgment and acquitted the respondents- Satyanarayan Agrawal, Uttam Sawaria, Sachin Sawaria, Sunita Agrawal from the charges as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, this Court nevertheless possesses wide powers to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. The settled legal position is that if, upon such reappraisal, it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence, 7 then the appellate Court is well within its jurisdiction to reverse the acquittal and record conviction. An acquittal that results from ignoring vital evidence, misreading the testimony of material witnesses, or by giving undue weight to trivial inconsistencies cannot be allowed to stand. 7. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the accused / respondents supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the accused / respondents, which warrants no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 9. The learned trial Court, upon a careful and comprehensive appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, arrived at the following material findings: (a) From the testimony of Santosh Kumar Agarwal (PW-12), father of the deceased, and Bhushan Agarwal (PW-1), her brother, it was established that the deceased Sunita was married to accused Ravi Sanwaria on 26.05.2003, and that she had complained of harassment after marriage. However, the Court found that these allegations were general in nature and primarily based on hearsay, lacking contemporaneous corroboration. 8 (b) The trial Court observed that although allegations of dowry demand were made, no specific instance of such demand or payment was supported by any independent witness. The prosecution witnesses being close relatives of the deceased, their testimony was required to be corroborated by other credible evidence, which was lacking in this case. (c) It was noted that the deceased’s alleged oral complaints of cruelty and demand of Rs.5,00,000/- were not reported to any authority or local panchayat during her lifetime, nor was there any written complaint or letter from her side to substantiate continuous harassment. (d) The Trial Court carefully examined the medical evidence and found that the cause of death, as per postmortem report (Ex. P-7) prepared by Dr. A.P. Sawant and Dr. Sugam Sawant, was cardio- respiratory failure due to pre-eclampsia of pregnancy with placental haemorrhage. The Court concluded that there was no medical evidence to suggest homicidal violence or external injuries attributable to physical assault. (e) The medical witnesses did not find any ante- mortem injuries sufficient to indicate that the 9 deceased was beaten or assaulted before death. The swelling on her body was found consistent with the effects of pre-eclampsia rather than any external trauma. (f) The Court observed that the prosecution’s version that the mother-in-law (accused Urmila) had kicked the deceased and that the sister-in-law had pushed her, causing abdominal pain, was supported only by the statements of interested witnesses. No independent witness from the locality or the hospital was examined to confirm this allegation. (g) The alleged incident in which the deceased was forced to write a statement absolving her in-laws of responsibility in case of her death was not proved by production of the said letter. The failure to produce this document or examine any witness who had seen it being written weakened the prosecution’s case on this aspect. (h) The learned Trial Court took note of the defence evidence which suggested that the relationship between the deceased and her husband was cordial, and that the deceased was receiving medical care for her pregnancy. The defence witnesses, including DW- 10 1 to DW-5, consistently deposed that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or dowry demands. (i) The Court found that the couple’s honeymoon trip to Darjeeling and Sikkim between 13.06.2003 and 25.06.2003 shortly after marriage indicated a normal marital relationship and contradicted the prosecution’s assertion of continuous dowry-related harassment immediately after marriage. (j) The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence of medical neglect or mistreatment by the accused family, despite claiming that the deceased was denied medicines or treatment. (k) Upon appreciation of the overall evidence, the Court found that while the allegations of cruelty against the husband (Ravi Sanwaria), father-in-law (Satyanarayan), and other in-laws were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the role of the mother-in- law (Urmila) stood on a different footing. (l) The Trial Court held that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12, supported by the deceased’s earlier statements, sufficiently established that accused Urmila had subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty connected with unlawful dowry 11 demands, and that such cruelty occurred soon before her death. (m) Consequently, the learned Trial Court convicted accused Urmila Sanwaria under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, while granting benefit of doubt to the remaining accused persons — Ravi Sanwaria (husband), Satyanarayan Sanwaria (father- in-law), and others - and acquitting them of the charges. (n) The Trial Court recorded that its conclusions were based on an objective and balanced assessment of the entire evidence on record, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the complicity of the other accused beyond reasonable doubt, though sufficient material existed to sustain the conviction of the mother-in-law alone. 10. On this basis, the trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498(A) of the IPC against the accused persons. It held that the prosecution had failed to establish the complicity of the other accused beyond reasonable doubt, though sufficient material existed to sustain the conviction of the mother-in-law alone. 11. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the respondents could not be held guilty of the charges levelled against them. Consequently, 12 the respondents except Smt. Urmila Devi Agrawal were acquitted of all charges. The Court emphasized that the acquittal was not a reflection of their character but a reflection of the prosecution’s failure to discharge its burden of proof. 12. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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." 13. In the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para-25 as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. 13 Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 14. Applying these principles and in light of the observation made by the learned trial Court, we proceed to examine the matter. 15. From the evidence of Santosh Kumar Agarwal (PW-12) and Bhushan Agarwal (PW-1), it has come on record that the deceased Sunita was married to accused Ravi Sanwaria on 26.05.2003, and that certain allegations of harassment were made thereafter. However, as rightly observed by the trial Court, such allegations were general in nature and based primarily on oral statements lacking any contemporaneous corroboration. No written complaint, letter, or report was produced by the prosecution to demonstrate that the deceased had ever approached any authority or panchayat for redressal of her grievances. 16. The prosecution placed reliance on the statements of PW-1 and PW-12 to establish the alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/-, but no independent witness or corroborative material was adduced in support of such demand. The evidence of these witnesses was inconsistent with regard to time, place, and manner of the alleged demand. The learned trial Court, therefore, correctly observed 14 that such omnibus allegations could not be relied upon without corroboration from any independent source. 17. The postmortem report (Ex. P-7) prepared by Dr. A.P. Sawant and Dr. Sugam Sawant, coupled with their oral testimonies as PW-9 and PW-10 respectively, conclusively established that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to pre-eclampsia with placental haemorrhage. The medical experts categorically stated that there were no antemortem injuries or signs of external violence on the body of the deceased. The swelling found on her body was consistent with the effects of pre-eclampsia and not due to physical assault. These findings clearly rule out any homicidal cause of death. 18. The alleged incident that the deceased was assaulted by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law causing abdominal pain was supported only by the interested testimonies of PW-1 and PW-12, without corroboration by any independent witness or medical evidence. No doctor or hospital record was produced to show that the deceased had ever complained of such assault during her medical treatment. The trial Court also noted that the prosecution failed to produce the alleged letter which the deceased was purportedly forced to write absolving her in-laws of any responsibility in the event of her death. The absence of this crucial document (alleged dying declaration) and failure to examine any witness who had seen it being written (as alleged by PW-1) materially weakened the prosecution version. 15 19. On the other hand, the defence produced documentary evidence (Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5), including photographs and travel records, showing that the couple had gone on a honeymoon trip to Darjeeling and Sikkim between 13.06.2003 and 25.06.2003, which indicates that their relationship was cordial soon after marriage. Defence witnesses DW-1 to DW-5 consistently deposed that the deceased was receiving proper medical care during her pregnancy and that there was no demand of dowry or act of cruelty by the family members. The learned trial Court rightly found such defence evidence to be credible and consistent with the medical findings. 20. It was further observed that the prosecution failed to establish any direct nexus between the alleged acts of cruelty and the death of the deceased. The proximity between the alleged harassment and the death, which is a necessary ingredient under Section 304-B IPC, was not proved. The medical evidence, particularly Ex. P-7 and the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10, excluded the possibility of a violent or suspicious death. 21. The trial Court, after appreciating the totality of circumstances, rightly distinguished the role of each accused and held that while the prosecution failed to establish specific acts of cruelty or demand of dowry against the husband, father-in-law, and other relatives, the evidence was sufficient only to sustain the conviction of accused Urmila Devi (mother-in-law) under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. 16 22. It is not disputed that during the pendency of appeal, accused Urmila Devi (mother-in-law) and Ravi Sanwaria (husband) expired, and therefore, the proceedings against Urmila Devi stand abated and name of accused Ravi Sanwaria stood deleted. With respect to the remaining accused persons, namely Satyanarayan Agrawal (father-in-law), Uttam Sanvadia (Brother- in-law), Sachind Sanvadia (Brother-in-law), Sunita Agrawal (Sister-in-law), this Court finds that the view taken by the learned trial Court is a possible and reasonable view based on sound appreciation of evidence. The acquittal recorded in their favour is supported by cogent reasoning and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record. 23. It is a well-settled principle that in an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings of the trial Court are manifestly unreasonable or suffer from grave misappreciation of evidence, the appellate Court should not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. In the present case, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is detailed, balanced, and supported by medical and documentary records. No compelling reason has been shown to upset the acquittal. 24. Considering the totality of evidence and the legal standards governing criminal accountability, this Court is of the firm view that the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court is both just and legally sound. There is, therefore, no compelling reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 17 25. It is also pertinent to note that the matter pertains to the year 2010, and after the lapse of considerable time, no compelling reason has been demonstrated to disturb the well-reasoned acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State as well as the revision preferred by the complainant, being devoid of substance and merit, stands dismissed. The acquittal of respondents is affirmed. 26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet