1 2025:CGHC:42383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 747 of 2009 1 – Munnalal, S/o Mahatru Satnami aged about 24 years, R/o Pithampur, Thana Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 – Mahatru, S/o Jantulal Satnami aged about 40 years, R/o Pithampur, Thana Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 – Sagani Bai, W/o Mahatru Satnami aged about 45 years, R/o Pithampur, Thana Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 – Nirmala Bai, D/o Mahatru Satnami aged about 22 years, R/o Pithampur, Thana Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S.- Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21.08.2025 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mungeli District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 35/2008 and 43/2008 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304(B) of I.P.C. R.I. for 10 years each. U/s 498(A) of I.P.C. R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Rukhmani Bai (since deceased) was married to Mahetru’s son Munnalal before 2 years of incident, After marriage, accused Munnalal, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass the deceased Rukhmani Bai for dowry. The deceased Rukhmani Bai used to tell to her parents whenever she visits her parents’ house about the way she was treated by her in-laws and the deceased was often convinced by her parents and they send her back to her in-laws house. Despite that the accused persons/appellants used to beat the deceased. On the evening at about 4:30 pm of 16.06.2008 two persons from village Konihapar and village Phoolwari came to village Manikpur and apprised to her parents that condition of their daughter Rukhmani Bai as serious as she strangulated herself at village Pithampur. Then, the father of the deceased came to the village Pithampur and he found that the autopsy of his daughter was done in absence of them. The father of the 3 deceased visited village Pithampur to see his daughter Rukhmani Bai at that time before him, his daughter was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and his father on account of dowry. Four months ago, accused/appellant had beaten the deceased Rukhmani and left her at her maternal home Manikpur. On being asked, her daughter told that the accused persons beaten her by stuffing a cloth in her mouth. It was later came into light by the villagers of Sivan that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons/appellants on account of dowry as earlier the villagers settled the dispute by convincing the appellants to take Rukhmani Bai back to their home. However, Rukhmani Bai had died as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons/appellants. The F.IR was lodged by Ramkumar(PW/01) father of the deceased at police station Mungeli vide Ex. P/01 and Ex. P/11 is the post mortem report conducted by Dr. B.L. Raj (PW/09). 3. During the course of investigation, vide Ex. P/16 spot map was prepared and its report was given vide Ex. P/17 and its copy was sent vide Ex. P/18 to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and vide Ex. P/04, shawl of the deceased was seized on 01.07.2008 and vide Ex. P/06 a rope was seized from the spot. 4. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were taken into custody and the statement of the accused persons/appellants and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli and the case was committed to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. 4 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been adduced in their defence. 6. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad-in-law and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and it erred in convicting the appellants under Section 304B of IPC. From the evidence on record it is clear that there were major contradictions between the Court statement and the case diary statement of the prosecution witnesses. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, but the learned trial Court completely overlooked the fact and gave wrong finding, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304B & 498A of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2008, this appeal is pending since 2009, The appellants No. 1 & 2 are now aged more than 40 years and the appellants 5 No. 3 & 4 are now aged more than 38 years; they have remained in jail for more than 02 years, they have never misused the liberty while being on bail, as such in the interest of justice the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Paranagouda and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454, in the matter of Shoor Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 2 SCC 815 and in this Court’s judgment dated 06.08.2025 in the matter of Dulichand Jain and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 593/2007. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present appellants, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court 6 convicted the appellants under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. 12. It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Rukhmani Bai was wife of Munnalal and daughter-in-law of Mahatru. The marriage of Rukhmani Bai and Munnalal was solemnized prior to two years of the date of incident and it is also not disputed that on 16.06.2008, deceased Rukhmani Bai was died due to strangulation. 13. (PW/01) Ramkumar father of the deceased Rukhmani Bai stated that the accused persons tortured his daughter for dowry and he called for village meeting in which Rukhmani Bai also stated that her in-laws used to torture her for dowry. On 16.06.2008, he received information about death of his daughter and when he reached the matrimonial house of his daughter, then he found that the accused persons performed post mortem of the deceased and thereby they performed the last rituals of the deceased in the absence of her parents, as such he lodged F.I.R against the appellants. In cross-examination, it was asked that: iz'u&vxj vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk eq>s ;g lwpuk nh xbZ gksrh fd esjh yM+dh :[ke.kh ckbZ Qkalh yxkdj ej xbZ gS ;k bu yksxksa us ekjdj mls Qkalh yVdk fn;k gS rks vki Fkkus esa dksbZ fjiksVZ ugha djrs vkSj vfHk;qDrksa ds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djrs \ mRrj&lk{kh dgrk gS fd ;fn esjh yM+dh dh ejus dh lwpuk rRdky vkjksihx.k eq>s ns nsrs rks eSa ,slh dk;Zokgh muds fo:} ugh djrkA In para 15 of his cross-examination he admitted that there was no demand of dowry during the time of marriage. He also admitted that the accused persons never demanded any dowry from him. 14. (PW/02) Puniya Bai mother of the deceased also stated that her 7 daughter used to tell her that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment regarding dowry and her daughter remained with her for 04 months and the appellants took her after the meeting and then they killed her by strangulating. In cross-examination she admitted that before her they never demanded regarding dowry, but her daughter/deceased used to say that the appellants demand her of dowry. 15. (PW/03) Santosh and (PW/04) Ratan stated in their cross-examinations that TV, Cooler, Fan, Motor Cycle and her husband/appellant No. 1 used to beat her. In their cross-examination they have denied this suggestion that the meeting was convened regarding the character of the deceased Rukhmani Bai. 16. (PW/09) Dr. B.L. Raj conducted post mortem of the deceased and he opined that the nature of death may be homicidal and she was died due to strangulation and gave his report vide Ex. P/11. 17. It is clear from the report of Dr. B.L. Raj (PW/09) that deceased Rukhmani Bai was died within 07 years of her marriage, but looking to the statements of father and mother of the deceased, it is not proved that soon before her death she was subjected to any cruelty regarding demand of dowry. 18. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charanjeet Singh (supra) held in paras 11 & 12 which reads as under:- “11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath’s case (supra). The opinion 8 was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- “25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: ( i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” as: (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), or (ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression “dowry” is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression “cruelty”, as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences.” 12. As the aforesaid case was also pertaining to dowry death, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was also discussed in detail in paras 29 to 31 of the aforesaid judgment. The same are extracted below:- “29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained 9 presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith. 30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof. 31. The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012 overeased to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated in the sections involved, lest justice is the casualty”. 19. In the above cited judgment and in the present case also, the prosecution has successfully proved this fact that the deceased was died within 07 years of marriage and the death was unnatural death as she committed suicide, but prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty regarding demand of dowry. As such, Section 304-B of IPC is not made out against the appellants and the same is hereby set aside, but offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out against the appellants as the deceased committed suicide in her in-laws house. So, their conviction under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be faulted with and the same is hereby affirmed. 20. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2008 and this appeal is pending since 2009, the appellants have 10 remained in jail for more than 02 years, the appellants No. 1 & 2 are now aged more than 40 years and the appellants No. 3 & 4 are now aged more than 38 years, they are facing lis since 17 years; they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them while being on bail, thus considering the total detention period of the accused/appellants, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under Section 498- A of IPC. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 21. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A of IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in the aforesaid Section. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 22. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 23. 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 U. K. Raju