1 2025:CGHC:59746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 470 of 2005 1 - Haricharan Nat S/o. Hitlal Nat, Aged about 60 years, Occupation Farmer, R/o. Village Gala, PS Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (CG) 2 - Smt. Fulpati Bai W/o. Haricharan, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Gala, PS Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellants : MR. RK Jain, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 09.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.5.2005 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Jashpur Distt. Jashpur (CG) in Session Case No.103/2004, whereby the learned Upper Sessions Judge, after holding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them in the following manner:- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.11 17:30:44 +0530 2 Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 304(B) IPC RI for 07 years Rs.1000/- RI for 01 year 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, marriage of deceased Amarawati @ Gudiya was solemnized with Hari Kumar Nat on 22.6.2000. The appellants are father and mother of Hari Kumar Nat. It is alleged that after few months of the marriage, the appellants and their son Hari Kumar Nat started harassing Amaravati on account of demand of motor cycle and money. On such demand, Rs.5,000/- and motor cycle was given by father of Amaravati. Despite that, the appellants and their son were not satisfied and due to such harassment, Amaravati @ Gudiya was found dead under suspicious circumstances on 02.3.2004. Merg report was lodged on 02.3.2004, based on merg enquiry report, FIR (Ex-P/5) was registered in Police Station Pathalgaon only against Hari Kumar Nat for the offence under Section 304B IPC. Inquest report (Ex-P/2) was prepared by the police. Postmortem of Amaravati was got done by Dr. YK Toppo (PW-3) and Dr. R. Topp (PW-4), in which they opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxial shock resulting by throttling, for which injury No.1 & 2 may be responsible, vide Postmortem report (Ex-P/3). Viscera of the deceased was collected and handed over the same to the concerned police constable for chemical examination. Thereafter FIR (Ex-P/5) was lodged against Hari Kumar Nat in Police Station Pathalgaon for the offence under Section 304B IPC. During course of investigation, spot map (Ex-P/6) was prepared, receipt pertaining to purchase of gold and silver jewelry and list of articles given during marriage was seized from father of the deceased (PW-7) vide seizure memo Ex-P/7. Spot map (Ex-P/9) was also prepared by the Patwari. 3 Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 304B IPC was filed against the appellants/accused showing accused Hari Kumar Nat (husband of the deceased) as absconder, before Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jashpur, thereafter the case was transferred to the concerned Upper Sessions Judge. 3. The learned Upper Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants/accused under Section 304B IPC, the appellants abjured guilt and prayed for trial. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, claimed themselves to be innocent and prayed for trial. They have examined two witnesses in their defence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 10.5.2005 finding the evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph, against which, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants neither harassed the deceased nor demanded any motor cycle or money from her. FIR was lodged only against Hari Kumar Nat, who was the husband of the deceased. Allegation of demanding motor cycle and money is bald allegation and no any witness of the village Gala or neighbours of the appellants have been examined. He further submits that if there was any dispute between the 4 husband and wife, which led to death of the deceased, the appellants were unaware of these matters. He further submits that the main accused, Hari Kumar Nat, has been absconding since the incident. The appellants have no information about his whereabouts. The appellants have been roped in this case only on the ground that they are the parents of main accused Hari Kumar Nat. Learned counsel further submits that as per the deposition of Dr. YK Toppo (PW-3), one nylon rope was sent to him for examination, but no such nylon rope has been seized by the police. Without examining any witnesses of village Gala or neibhours of the appellants, only the on the basis of bald statement of witnesses, who are residents of other village, the appellants have been roped in the instant case. Nothing has been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry soon before her death. Despite that, the learned Upper Session Judge, convicted the appellants, which is perverse to the evidence, hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted of all the charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of the evidence, hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment. 9. Undisputedly, marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Hari Kumar Nat, who is the son of the appellants, in the year 2000/2001, as such, the appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. After the marriage, the deceased was residing in her matrimonial home at village Gala. The deceased died on 02.3.2004 at her matrimonial home. On 5 being informed, the police of Police Station Pathalgaon lodged merg report and also conducted inquest vide Ex-P/2, which has been proved by Santram (PW-1) and Patiram (PW-6). 10. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. YK Toppo (PW-3) and Dr. R. Toppo (PW-4). Ex-P/3 is postmortem report. Dr. YK Toppo (PW-3) has stated in his deposition that they found injuries on the neck of the deceased, which were present all around the neck. They have opined that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxial shock resulting by throttling for which, injury No.1 & 2 may be responsible. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of aforesaid witnesses to discard aforesaid facts. As such, from aforesaid medical evidence, it is very well proved that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxial shock due to throttling, which also proved that the deceased died under suspicious circumstances, within 07 years of her marriage. 11. Allegation against the appellants is that they and their son Hari Kumar Nat (husband of the deceased) used to harass the deceased on account of demand of motor cycle and money. This fact has also been supported by Umesh Singh (PW-7), father of the deceased and Ajeet Singh (PW-8), cousin brother of the deceased. 12. Umesh Singh (PW-7) has also stated that on account of aforesaid demand, he had given Rs.5,000/- and an old motor cycle. This fact has also been supported by Ajeet Singh (PW-8), but they have not stated when the alleged amount and motor cycle was given. 13. Umesh Singh (PW-7) has specifically stated that on various occasions the deceased had come to his house (parental home of the deceased) after leaving her matrimonial home. However, he has also stated that appellant Haricharan (father-in-law of the deceased) had come to take 6 the deceased from her parental home. He has also admitted that after the death of the deceased, they had taken two children of the deceased with them, who were later on taken back by the appellant. This fact shows the conduct of the appellants particularly Haricharan that he wanted to allow the deceased to live with her husband. 14. All the witnesses of factual aspects examined by the police are not the residents of village Gala, which is the matrimonial place of the deceased. No any witness of village Gala has been examined by the prosecution. It seems that statement under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses or neighbours of village Gala was also not recorded by the police. Allegation against the appellants for dowry harassment by Umesh Singh (PW-7), father of the deceased and Ajeet Singh (PW-8) cousin of the deceased are bald allegation. From their deposition, it also appears that Musai Ram was the person, who made efforts to understand the deceased and the appellant, but he has not been examined by the prosecution. 15. When Umesh Singh (PW-7) and Ajeet Singh (PW-8) and other family members of the parental side of the deceased had gone to the house of the deceased upon receiving information about her, they saw the rope knot lying under the bed. But no such rope was seized by the police. Ajeet Singh (PW-8) has stated in his deposition that said rope was made of thread of clothes, but as per the deposition of Dr. YK Toppo, nylon rope was sent to him for examination. But none of the witnesses have stated that they have seen the nylon rope below the bed of the deceased. 16. FIR (Ex-P/5) was registered after merg inquiry, only against Hari Kumar Nat, therefore, it seems that till recording FIR, parental side of the deceased had not alleged that the appellants harassed the deceased on account of demand of dowry, subsequently they improved their statement 7 recorded under Section 161 CrPC, thereafter while filing charge sheet, the appellants have been roped in the case. But there is no evidence to prove the fact that the appellants used to harass the deceased on demand of dowry. 17. In the instant case, husband of the deceased Hari Kumar Nat has been absconding since immediately after the death of the deceased. Therefore, if any explanation was to be sought, Hari Kumar Nat is the proper person for providing explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As it has not been proved by the prosecution that both the appellants were residing with the deceased and her husband Hari Kumar Nat, rather, from cross-examination of Ajeet Singh (PW-8), it is found that elder son of the appellant resides in another house across the road from the house, where the incident occurred, therefore, the prosecution ought to have proved that the appellants were also present/residing in the house, where the deceased died under suspicious circumstances. 18. For conviction of the accused under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry by the accused persons, but no such fact has been proved against the appellants in the instant case. But the learned Upper Sessions Judge, relying only on the bald statement of Umesh Singh (PW-7) and Ajeet Singh (PW-8), convicted the appellants, which is perverse to the evidence and law. Hence, impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 19. In view of the above discussion, I feel inclined to allow the instant appeal. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the said charges. 20. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today, in 8 view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 21. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with record of the concerned Court below be transmitted forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini