1 2025:CGHC:58326-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1538 of 2023 Kriparam Sahu S/o Lt. Shobheram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village, Hanchanlpur, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Father Of Deceased) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bhakhara, District . - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrahas Sahu, S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years Village - Junwani, Thana - Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Peman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years Village - Junwani, Thana - Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Maheshwari Bai W/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 52 Years Village - Junwani, Thana - Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Hameshwri Bai W/o Peman Sahu Aged About 33 Years Village - Junwani, Thana - Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.04 17:08:14 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/father of the deceased under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘CrPC’) for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the respondents herein vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 40/2019, whereby the respondents have been convicted under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years (each). 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased, Smt. Indu Sahu, was married to accused Chandrahas Sahu on 05.03.2016 as per social customs. After the marriage, the deceased resided at her matrimonial home in Village- Junwani, Police Station- Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari. During the subsistence of marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by her husband- Chandrahas Sahu, mother- in-law- Maheshwari Bai, brother-in-law- Peman Sahu and sister- in-law- Hameshwari Sahu. The prosecution asserts that the accused persons repeatedly taunted the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry, assaulted and abused her, and persistently demanded money from her parental home. It is stated that, on 3 one occasion, on 31.01.2018, the father of the deceased/appellant herein, Kriparam Sahu, arranged Rs. 4,00,000/- by obtaining a loan from Shriram Finance and handed it over to accused Chandrahas Sahu, yet the harassment allegedly continued unabated. 3. The prosecution further alleges that from 05.03.2016 to 21.05.2019, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused persons continued to torture the deceased, which caused her severe emotional distress. The deceased is said to have regularly informed her parents and siblings over telephone that her husband and in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty in connection with dowry. Troubled by the persistent harassment, the deceased allegedly consumed a poisonous substance before 10:30 PM on 21.05.2019. She was taken to Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, where she died around 10:00 PM. As the death occurred within seven years of marriage and under suspicious circumstances, the matter was investigated as a dowry death. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the police found prima facie involvement of accused Chandrahas Sahu, Maheshwari Bai, Peman Sahu and Hameshwari Sahu, and accordingly filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagari. The matter was later committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was received on 08.08.2019 for trial. 5. Charges under Sections 304B/34 IPC and, in the alternative, 4 Section 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The accused denied all allegations and claimed trial. In their examination under Section 313 CrPC, they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and asserted false implication. The defence examined Rajendra Sahu (DW-01) and the accused Chandrahas Sahu (DW-02) in support of their plea of innocence. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirty-two witnesses (P.W.-1 to P.W.-32) and exhibited 49 documents. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 22.03.2025 convicted and sentenced the accused/respondents as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein / father of the deceased for enhancement of sentence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law, contrary to settled principles, and reflects an approach of granting a lesser and incompetent sentence despite the gravity of the allegations and evidence on record. It is urged that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the prosecution case stood firmly established through cogent, assured and connected pieces of evidence, warranting imposition of maximum punishment rather than an unduly lenient term of seven years under Section 5 304-B/34 IPC, despite the existence of charges under Sections 304-B/34 and 302/34 IPC. It is contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offences, yet the trial Court erroneously confined its consideration only to Section 304-B/34 IPC without framing, discussing, or adjudicating the charge under Section 302/34 IPC, even though the father of the deceased had specifically alleged a barbaric act of cruelty coupled with suspicion of murder and despite medical probabilities suggesting that had froth been visible at the time the deceased was brought to the hospital, the doctor would have noted ingestion of poison rather than certifying it as a case of assault. 8. He further contended that the learned trial Court overlooked material evidence, including the fact that on 21.05.2019, prior to the incident, accused No.1 had openly threatened the deceased, an aspect accepted by the Court itself in Point No. 61 on pages 38-39 of the impugned judgment and this, in conjunction with the injuries found in the postmortem report beyond those attributable to poisoning, demonstrated intention, violence and cruelty. It is argued that the conviction has been rendered solely on the basis of the FIR, disregarding the clinching facts recorded in the charges framed on 13.08.2019 and ignoring the significant injuries near the neck and legs, suggesting tying of limbs and possible forcible administration of poison accompanied by acts of brutality. He further highlights further suspicious circumstances, such as 6 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly travelling nearly 70 km from Junvani to Dhamtari within about 30 minutes after realising the consequences of their acts, the undisputed allegation of respondent No.1’s extramarital affair which supplied motive, and the existence of an LIC policy in the name of the deceased. It is also submitted that Exhibit-5 records that the deceased was declared dead on arrival, and Exhibit-6 shows an intimation under Section 174 CrPC mentioning “assault” as the cause of death, consistent with the timeline wherein the deceased was threatened in the morning, her condition deteriorated by mid-day, a call was made to her sister at about 10:30 a.m., and she was declared dead shortly thereafter. He further asserts that there is no contradiction between the case-diary statements and Court statements of prosecution witnesses and therefore the Trial Court erred in ignoring the consistent and reliable prosecution evidence. In any event, it is argued that the conviction recorded is unsustainable in law and the sentence imposed is wholly inadequate, warranting enhancement to meet the ends of justice. Reliance is placed on Ajhola Devi & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases of dowry death, legislative intent mandates strict sentencing and strong societal deterrence, and a sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-B IPC was upheld as proportionate in view of the gravity of the offence and the need to curb the menace of dowry death with 7 an iron hand. 9. On a careful consideration of the record, it becomes evident that the questions sought to be urged in the present enhancement appeal no longer survive for independent adjudication. This is for the reason that the entire factual matrix, evidentiary appreciation, and the correctness of the judgment of the learned trial Court have already been comprehensively examined by this Court in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 844/2023, which arose out of the same judgment and has been decided concurrently with the present matter. In the said appeal, after a detailed re-evaluation of the ocular and documentary evidence and upon a fresh appraisal of the circumstances forming the chain of prosecution case, this Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of respondent No.2- Chandrahas Sahu, maintaining the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. However, upon the same scrutiny, the other co-accused persons- respondents No.3, 4 and 5 were found not to be connected with the crime in a manner sufficient to sustain their conviction, and they were accordingly acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded in the connected appeal, the present appeal by the complainant seeking conviction of the respondents No. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and enhancement of sentence, does not disclose any additional or distinct ground warranting further interference with respect to the sentence already imposed upon respondent 8 No.2. Once the conviction and sentence in respect of respondent No. 2 under Section 304-B/34 IPC has been upheld by this Court and the respondents No. 3 to 5 have been acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC, on merits after thorough consideration in the connected appeal bearing CRA No. 844/2023 preferred by the convicts, any prayer by the complainant for enhancement of the very same sentence stands baseless, as the matter now stands closed and concluded on all material aspects. No perversity, illegality, or inadequacy remains for consideration in isolation. 11. Consequently, as the issues raised herein are entirely covered by and stand adjudicated in Criminal Appeal No. 844/2023 decided alongwith the present appeal, the present appeal seeking enhancement of sentence deserves no further consideration and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet