1 2025:CGHC:61154-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 24.09.2025 16.12.2025 -- 16.12.2025 CRA No. 957 of 2015 1 - Chandrahas S/o Om Prakash Darshan, aged about 29 years, R/o Village- Bhadripali, P.S.- Kharsiya, Civil and Revenue District- Raigarh, (C.G.). 2 - Hemlata Darshan W/o Late Hari Shankar Darshan, aged about 80 years, R/o Village- Bhadripali, P.S.- Kharsiya, Civil and Revenue District- Raigarh, (C.G.) --- Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.) --- Respondent Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 CRA No. 1791 of 2018 1 - Om Prakash Darshan S/o Late Shri Harishankar Darshan, aged about 60 years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village- Bhadripali, Police Station- Kharsiya, Civil and Revenue District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Ratna Bai Darshan W/o Shri Om Prakesh Darshan, aged about 50 years, R/o Village- Bhadripali, Police Station- Kharsiya, Civil and Revenue District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 3 - Vivek Kumar Darshan S/o Shri Om Prakash Darshan, aged about 27 years, R/o Village- Bhadripali, Police Station- Kharsiya, Civil and Revenue District- Raigarh, (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kharsiya, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System software) For Respective Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi and Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (C A V Judgment) Per Rajani Dubey, J 1. Both these appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellants in CRA No. 957 of 3 2015 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 167/2014 and the appellants in CRA No. 1791 of 2018 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 656/14, both the cases are arising out of the same incident and same crime no. i.e., 173/14, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Admitted facts of the case is that the deceased Anita is the daughter of Gopal Singh and wife of the accused Chandrahas. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that an oral report was filed by Om Prakash Darshan (Father-in-law of the deceased) at Kharsia Police Station stating that his daughter-in-law, the deceased, Anita Darshan, had committed suicide by hanging herself on 27/04/2014. Based on this information from Om Prakash Darshan, morgue was registered. During the inquest, a spot map was prepared. A Panchnama (inquest report) was prepared and the body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed the cause of death to be suicide, leading to a criminal case being registered against the accused persons. 4. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. A spot map of the incident was prepared. Incriminating material was seized from the spot. Evidence of crime was found against accused Chandrahas and Hemlata and they were arrested. 4 Following a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was submitted to the court of the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, for trial against accused Om Prakash Darshan, Vivek Kumar Darshan, and Ratnabai Darshan for absconding and the case was committed to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh (C.G.) for offence under Sections 304B/34 and Section 304B/149 against the accused persons/appellants. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. However, one defence witness was examined by the appellants in their defence. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants in CRA 957 of 2015 submits that the in the entire case of prosecution, ingredients of Section 304B/34 are not made out, nowhere the appellants committed any act which can be called as dowry death. The allegations are omnibus and general against the appellants and there are no specific allegations against them. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was harassed soon before her death. The father of the deceased has said that his daughter/deceased was harassed earlier also but he did not lodge 5 any complaint about those incidents making the case of the prosecution doubtful. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and chain is not complete. There are many major difference between the police statement and court statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No. 1791 of 2018 for the appellants submits that the prosecution has to first show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death and that there is no evidence on record in the present case to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before her death. The statements of the deceased family against the in-laws are concerned self-contradictory and hence are unreliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held that in such like cases, near relations of the deceased have tendency to exaggerate and add facts, which may not have been stated to them at all. The body of the deceased was found hanging but the witnesses said that there was no marks on the body of the deceased. The mother, father and other relatives of the deceased admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is against the evidence and therefore, liable to be set aside. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death and there is no evidence on record in the present case to show the same. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and 6 order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS. Vs. The State of West Bengal in the judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed in CRA No. 1556 of 2013, Phulel Singh Vs. State of Haryana in the judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed in CRA No. 396 of 2010, Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 LiveLaw SC 341, Asha and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand in the judgment dated 01.11.2013 passed in CRA 1893 of 2013 and in the matter of Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana in the judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in CRA No. 1076 of 2014. 8. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Anita died within 07 years of marriage, solemnized with Chandrahas and 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. As such, the appeal being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 304B/34 against the appellants in CRA No. 957 of 2015 and Sessions Trial No. 7 167/2014 was registered against them under Crime No. 173/2014 and the rest of the accused have absconded, the learned trial Court passed judgment on 10.07.2015. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 304B/149 against the accused persons/appellants in CRA No. 1791 of 2018 and Sessions Trial No. 656/2014 was registered against them under Crime No. 173/2014 and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted them for the same and passed judgment on 26.11.2018. 11. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that deceased Anita was wife of accused/appellant Chandrahas and their marriage was solemnized prior to one year and the deceased was died on 27.04.2014 i.e. within 07 years of her marriage. It is also not disputed that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. 12. PW-4 Dr. Lalita Rathia and PW-7 Dr. R.K. Singh had conducted postmortem of the deceased Anita and gave postmortem report vide Ex. P/10 and PW-4 examined the private parts and uterus of the deceased and opined that deceased was pregnant and male child of nine months was found in her uterus. Her report is Ex. P/6. Both the doctors have opined that nature of death is suicidal. The nature of death has also not been disputed by the appellants, therefore, it has been found proved by the learned Trial Court that death of the deceased Anita was suicidal in nature. 13. PW-6 Shanti Kumar Dansena has stated he knows the deceased, Anita and Gopal. Gopal (father of the deceased) came to his house 8 and told him that the husband and wife had quarreled the previous night and his daughter had called him. He asked her what I had to do with a husband-wife quarrel. PW-8 Gopal Singh replied to him that her father-in-law was not present in house and therefore, you should come and he went. Gopal said to him that his daughter Anita wants to go with him to her parents' home and PW-06 was requested to be a counsellor of both his daughter and her husband, however, PW-6 refused to give any advice. Then, Gopal told his daughter that disputes between husband and wife are quite normal, so don’t quarrel again. He further stated that he supported the statement of Gopal and after suggesting, he went to his home. In the evening, he came to know that the deceased Anita had hanged herself. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his house is nearer to the house of the accused. Anita had never disclosed regarding any problem or trouble to him. Further, he admitted that deceased was pregnant and her husband used to take her to doctor for her regular checkups. 14. PW-8 Gopal Singh father of the deceased Anita has stated that his daughter used to call him from time to time and tell him that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. On receiving the call, he reached his daughter's in-laws' house at 8 in the morning. When he reached his daughter's in-laws' house, her mother-in-law and father-in-law were not at home, her brother-in-law was at home. After having dinner, when he was resting, then around 3 o'clock, his brother received a call from Om Prakash Darshan. He asked to give phone to Gopal and 9 then his brother gave phone to him and he told him that Anita had hanged herself. In paras 7 & 10 of his cross-examination, he admitted as under:- “7…. विाह होने के एक माह पहले अविनता एं आरोपी चन््ቖहास के विाह की बातचीत चली थी। विाह के पू फलदान / सगाई विाह होने के 20-25 विदन पहले ्ቇाम भदरीपाली में आरोपीगण के घर में हुई थी। यह कहना गलत है विक उसी विदन शादी की तारीख तय हुई थी, स्तः कहा विक बाद में हमारे घर आए, जहां तारीख तय हुई थी। यह कहना सही है विक आरोपीगण मेरी अविनता को देखकर पसंद विकये थे स्तः कहा विक पहले से ही पसंद विकये थे। अविनता एं चन््ቖहास का सगाई/ फलदान का काय्ቅम भी आनंदपूक संप्ቐ हुआ था, सा्ቌी स्तः कहता है विक सगाई के समय मैने आरोपी ओम्ቚकाश दशन को यह कह विदया था विक मैं बहुत गरीब आदमी हूं, मै अपने सामथ के अनुसार जैसे सामान सकूं गा दूंगा। यह कहना सही है विक ओम्ቚकाश ने मुझसे यह कहा था विक मुझे लड़की सुंदर है पसंद है, मुझे के ल बहु चाविहए, मुझे कोई सामान गैरह नहीं चाविहए। यह कहना सही है विक मृतितका अविनता के विाह के समारोज मे आरोपीगण विकसी ्ቚकार का कोई दहेज अथा स्तू की मांग नही विकये थे तथा विाह के समय मै अपनी लडकी को जैसा बन पड़ा ैसा सामान अपनी मज; से देकर विदा विकया था।" 10…. जिजस तरह मैं अपनी लडकी रीता को गरीबी गुजारा मे जैसा सामान उपहार के रूप मे दे सकता था विदया था…… .” However, he denied the suggestion of the defence in para 12 as under :- 10 12.….. जब मेरी लड़की क्ቌा दसी में पढ़ती थी तब उसने जहर खा लिलया था। यह कहना गलत है विक उसे डाक्टर रूपेन््ቖ पटेल के यहां भत; विकये थे। डॉ रूपेन््ቖ पटेल रायगढ़ के यहां जहर खाने के कारण नहीं बቇኌDक मेरी लड़की की तबीयत खराब होने के कारण भत; विकये थे।… . However, he stated that in para 13 of his cross- examination that his daughter only visited her parents home once after her marriage. He further stated that Shanti Kumar's house is a relative and living in front of the house of the accused. He further admits that he never complained to Shanti Kumar Dunsena about the fact that after two-three months of my daughter Anita's marriage, Chandrahas, her old mother- in-law and her brother-in-law harassed her daughter in connection with demand of dowry and he never convened any village meeting with regard to demand of dowry against in-laws of the deceased and also admitted that he never complained before the police station against the accused persons. In para 20, he stated as under:- ….. यह कहना गलत है विक मै उ्ሹ रिरपोट जो करना बताया है उसमें आरोपीगण के लिखलाफ कोई भी आरोप छोटे छोटे सामान लाने के कारण गाली गालौज और मारपीट करने के संबंध मे नही लिलखाया हूं। यह कहना गलत है विक उ्ሹ रिरपोट मे मैने के ल यह लिलखाया था विक बीते रात मेरा दामांद चन््ቖहास विाह समारोज से विलंब से आया था जिजसके कारण दोनो पतित पत्नी के बीच विाद हो गया था तथा इसके अतितरिर्ሹ मैने अन्य कोई आरोप विकसी भी आरोपी के 11 लिखलाफ नही लिलखाया था, यविद मेरी उ्ሹ लिललिखत रिरपोट जो मैं थाने में देना बताया हूं, अभिभलेख में संल्ሿ न हो तो मैं इसका कोई कारण नहीं बता सकता हूं। He further admitted this suggestion of defence that at the time of inquest, he was present and at that time, he did not lodge any report against the accused persons. In para 31, he admitted that after his daughter told him about the said incident, he never inquired or complained to his son-in-law about this. He also admitted that in this regard, he never complained to his daughter’s father-in- law (समधी). In para 32, he denied the suggestion that " यह कहना गलत है विक ह मायके जाने की जिजद कर रही थी तथा मैं उसे मायकै लेकर नही आया इस कारण ह जिजद के कारण गुस्से में फांसी लगा ली।" In para 36, he admitted that he did not complain about the demands of the accused for a Pulsar motorcycle and Rs. 20,000 made by daughter Anita. 15. PW-09 Phool Bai, mother of the deceased stated that her daughter Anita told her on phone that her in-laws trouble her by saying that she has given less dowry and given small things. In para 6 of her cross-examination, she admitted that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at the time of marriage. 16. PW-10 Ghanshyam, cousin of the deceased stated that when he went to the house of Anita, she started crying in front of him and told 12 him that her husband troubles her and beats her and she said to me to disclose this thing with her father. After that he went to his maternal uncle Gopal Dansena (father of the deceased) and apprised him of the same thing. In para 04 of his cross-examination he stated that he had mentioned the cruelty which was narrated to him by the deceased in his police statement vide Ex. D/5 and Ex. D/6 and he cannot explain if this fact is not written in the same. 17. PW-12 Manharan Patel stated that he went with Gopal Singh and saw that Anita committed suicide by hanging. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but he denied all suggestion of the prosecution and he admitted this suggestion of the defence that Gopal Singh never complained to him about Anita facing any difficulties or problems at her in-laws house. 18. PW-16 Narsingh, uncle of the deceased admitted his signature on seizure memo vide Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5, but he has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has declared him hostile and cross-examined him and then, he denied the suggestion and denied his police statement too. 19. PW-17 Mangal Singh stated that Anita's in-laws harassed her for dowry. They demanded a motorcycle, a T.V. and Rs. 20,000/- from the deceased. In para 05 of his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of defence that there was no demand of dowry made by the accused persons at the time of marriage. At the behest of his brother Gopal Singh, he gave a statement about the cruelty and oppression of the deceased by her in-laws, but he has no personal knowledge of the matter. 13 20. DW-01 Raghunandan Prasad Dansena, neighbour of the accused stated that Anita lived well in her in-laws house, she had no problems. 21. Close scrutiny of statement of all witnesses clearly shows that at the time of marriage, no demand was made by the accused and prior to one day of incident, the deceased telephoned to her father and called him. Thereafter, PW-08 Gopal Singh and PW-06 Shanti Kumar Dansena went to the appellants' house. PW-06 admitted in para 03 of his cross-examination that Gopal told him on the date of incident that on the previous night, the accused Chandrahas had gone to his uncle's house for a wedding and returned home a bit late, as such quarrel took place between the accused and his daughter. Thereafter, Gopal Singh made his daughter understand by saying that quarrel between husband and wife happens over trivial issues, you should live well and then they both left from there. 22. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Karan Singh (Supra), in paras 6 & 7 which reads as under:- “6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B: (a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage; (c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; 14 and (d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband’s relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC. 23. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh (Supra), held in paras 10 & 11, which reads as under:- “10. The conviction of the appellant is under Sections 3048 and 498A IPC raising presumption regarding dowry death within seven years of marriage. To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Section 304B and 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would be required. The same are extracted hereinbelow:- "304B. Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman 15 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 purpose 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. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave 16 injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or (b) 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. 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 had 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 meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" 11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra). The opinion 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 17 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 o account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 24. In the light of above cited judgments, in the present case also, we find that the prosecution has proved this fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging within 07 years of her marriage, but cruelty or harassment soon before her death was not proved by the 18 prosecution. The statements of mother, father and other relatives of the deceased are general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused persons. The father of the deceased admitted this suggestion that prior to one day of the death of his daughter, he made his daughter understand by saying that quarrel between husband and wife are quite normal and often happens over trivial issues and then he went back. As per independent witness PW-06 Shanti Kumar Dansena, some quarrel took place between the husband and wife prior to one day of the fateful incident on the ground that husband came home late from the wedding. 25. Upon the collective appreciation of the evidence lead by the prosecution we are of the considered view that the prerequisites to raise presumption under Section 304-B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act having not been fulfilled, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her in-laws in connection with any demand of dowry, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts minutely and convicted the appellants thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 26. Ex consequenti, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments dated 10.07.2015 and 26.11.2018 are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges levelled against them. 19 27. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S. 2023), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 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 thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 28. 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/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge U.K. Raju