1 2025:CGHC:53158-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 282 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Premnagar, District- Surajpur, (C.G.). ... Appellant versus Dilraj S/o Birsay Gond Aged About 21 Years R/o- Village Ketka, Majhapara, Presently R/o Village Durgapur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 30/10/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.61/2016, whereby, the respondent has been ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.10.31 11:11:19 +0530 2 acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 450, 328 and 302 of IPC and, instead, he was held guilty for the offence under Section 456 of IPC and has been sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine amount of Rs.100/-, along with the usual default clause. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the respondent-Dilraj, whose marriage was fixed with the deceased-Heeramati, entered into her house on 30.01.2016 around 10 pm, while carrying pesticide and started quarreling with her and administered the alleged pesticide (poison) forcefully in her mouth and, he also consumed a little bit of it and, was thereafter running away from the spot and, the deceased- Heeramati, who chased him, fell down and her sister, namely-Santra, who was with her, called out to her parents, who then, came out and by the time, the deceased was found unconscious and was admitted into the hospital, where she died during the course of her treatment. Based upon the alleged allegations, the respondent was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 328 and 302 of IPC in connection with Crime No.25/2016 and, the charges so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the deceased’s sister Ku. Santra (PW/5), her father Anil Toppo (PW/1) and that by considering also the statement of one Vikas (PW/8), held that since there is disparity in their testimonies regarding administering the alleged pesticide (poison) to the deceased-Heeramati, therefore, it cannot be 3 said that the respondent has administered the alleged article to her and, in consequence, he was acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence. It observed further that since he entered into the house of the deceased without the permission of her father, therefore, he was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 456 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine amount of Rs.100/-, failing which, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the additional period of 5 days. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred, while counsel appearing for the respondent has informed to this Court that he has not preferred an appeal against his conviction under Section 456 IPC. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 450, 328 and 302 of IPC, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the deceased’s sister, namely, Santra and her father have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting him as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 4 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether, the prosecution has succeeded to establish the fact that the respondent on the said fateful day while entering into the house of the deceased-Heeramati has administered her the alleged pesticide (poison) forcefully which led to her death? 9. Santra (PW/5) is the sister of the deceased-Heeramati and on the said fateful day, was sleeping along with her in a room, while her parents were on another room. According to her, the respondent entered into her house on the date of incident around 10 pm and had talked with her sister for about half an hour and thereafter, he administered the poison forcefully to her and, threatened to administer the same to her as well, if she shouted. 10. Father of the deceased was examined as (PW/9), who was informed by his said daughter-Santra that the respondent has forcefully administered the poison to his deceased daughter- Heeramati, while mother of the deceased, who was also there, but was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 11. What is, therefore, reflected from the testimony of the sister (Santra) of the deceased that the respondent on the said fateful day had administered the poison to her (deceased-Heeramati) and, her father (PW/9) came to know about this fact from her (PW/5) that the 5 respondent had administered the poison to his deceased daughter- Heeramati. But, a close scrutiny of her (PW/5) statement would however, show that no information as such was given by her to the father-Amol Singh (PW/9). Therefore, the statement of her father cannot be relied upon that he received the alleged information from her said daughter that the respondent had forcefully administered the poison to his deceased daughter. 12. That apart, it appears from the statement of one Vikas (PW/8), the cousin of the deceased, that he was informed by deceased’s father in presence of his wife and daughter-Santra, that his deceased daughter-Heeramati has consumed poison. He was, thus, not informed by him (deceased’s father) that the respondent has administered the poison to his deceased daughter forcefully, as alleged by said Santra (PW/5). 13. Pertinently, to be noted here further, as reflected from the statement of Dr. P.K. Sinha (PW/6) who examined medically the deceased, that her parents have informed him that she (deceased- Heeramati) has consumed the poison. 14. In view of such circumstances, the evidence of the deceased’s sister-Santra (PW/5) that the respondent has administered the poison to her sister forcefully cannot be relied upon, nor the statement of her father (PW/9) could be held to be trustworthy, that he came to know from his said daughter (PW/5) that the respondent has administered the poison to his deceased daughter-Heeramati 6 forcefully, as his evidence is even otherwise, not found to be corroborated either by said Dr. P.K. Sinha (PW/6) or by Vikash (PW/8). 15. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal, so as to, call for any interference in the finding of the trial Court acquitting the respondent for the commission of the alleged offence under Sections 430, 328 and 302 IPC. 16. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan