1 2025:CGHC:54656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 201 of 2012 Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Kumar Singh Verma, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Lata, P.S. Berla, District- Durg C.G. ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station- Berla, District- Durg C.G. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 10.11.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 09.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, passed in S.T. No. 20/2011, whereby the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced her as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 304-B of IPC R.I for 07 years 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to two years of the Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 date of incident i.e., on 21.12.2010, the marriage of the appellant and deceased Kevra Bai @ Dipti Verma was solemnized. Thereafter, the deceased lived along with the appellants, where she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants and her in laws’ on account of demand of dowry, upon such persecution by her in laws’, she came to her maternal home. Her parents and people of her village made her understand by convincing her that trivial issues are often common in marital life. She narrated the whole incident to her parents and also stated that her husband used to beat her as she conveyed all these things with her parents. On the date of incident i.e., on 21.12.2010, her husband stated that the deceased was feeling not well, then Hema Bai along with Dilip Verma went to village-Lata, then they came to know that the deceased set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil upon her. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, they were charge- sheeted before the Court of concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Section 304- B read with Section 34 and in alternate Section 302/34 of IPC against the accused persons. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 4. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused persons have been recorded, in which they denied the incriminating charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence that they have been falsely 3 implicated in this case. However, one witness has been examined by them in their defence. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted the present appellant for offence under Section 304-B of IPC by acquitting the other co-accused persons of the aforesaid charge and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is against the facts, law and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in not considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material available on record in its entirety and has wrongly came to the conclusion that the appellant has committed an offence under Section 304- B of IPC, learned trial Court has failed to consider that there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses particularly, in the statement of close relatives of the deceased. He further contended that PW-4 who is maternal grandfather of the deceased specifically stated that the dispute with regard to some trivial family matters between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and not with regard to any demand of dowry, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, so, 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 appellant under Section 304-B of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just 4 and proper, the incident took place in the year 2010, this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellant is now aged more than 35 years; and he has remained in jail for 04 years 10 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Upon comprehensive evaluation of the record of learned trial Court, it is clear that it framed charges for offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 in alternate Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellant and other co-accused persons and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 304B and 302 of IPC and also acquitted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, but convicted the appellant for offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced as described in para 1 of this judgment. 10. Before the learned trial Court, it is an admitted position that the deceased Dipti Verma @ Kevra Bai was wife of accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar Verma and their marriage was solemnized in 2008 and Dipti Verma alias Kevra Bai was died on 21.12.2010 due to burning. 5 11. PW-1 Smt. Hema Bai, mother of the deceased stated that her daughter Dipti Verma told her that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband Dinesh Kumar Verma on account of dowry and they threw her from their house. Thereafter, near about 15 people of their community went to the in-laws’ house of the deceased, made the deceased Dipti Verma understand by convincing her that trivial issues are often common in marital life and left her there. However, after passage of 15 days, her daughter died due to burning. 12. PW-2 Mamta Verma, PW-3 Dilip Verma, PW-4 Thanu Ram, PW-5 Anasuiya Bai, PW-6 Narad Verma, PW-7 Babu Lal Verma, PW-8 Budharu, PW-11 Rohal Ram Verma are all witnesses who have supported the statement of PW-1 Hema Bai that the accused/appellant tortured his wife and before 15 days of the incident, she was thrown out from his house and after being convinced by her parents and the villagers, she was again brought back into the house and she committed suicide. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly finds that the unnatural death of the deceased was proved by the prosecution and also the prosecution has proved this fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in relation to dowry and the learned trial Court rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 304B of IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellant under section 304B of IPC stands affirmed. 13. As regards quantum of sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2010, this appeal is pending since 2012, the 6 appellant was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he ever misused the liberty granted to him; appellant is now aged more than 35 years; and has remained in jail for 04 years and 10 months. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by her for offence under Section 304B of IPC. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. 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