1 2025:CGHC:56544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 425 of 2005 1 - Janiya @ Jugiya Bai , Wife of Ramvriksh, aged about 66 years, Occupation House wife, R/o. Village Hariharpur, PS Paratappur,District Surguja (CG)(Deleted) 2 - Kashinath Gupta, Son of Ravriksh, aged about 27 years, Occupation, Agriculature, R/o. Village Hariharpur, PS Paratappur,District Surguja (CG) 3 - Smt. Usha Gupta, W/o. Nandkeshwar Gutpa, Aged about 26 years, Occupation Housewife, R/o. Village Hariharpur, PS Paratappur,District Surguja (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through PS Paratppur, District Surguja ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 20.11.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2005 passed by Fourth Upper Sessions Judge, FTC, Surajpur, Surguja (CG) in Session Case No.404/2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 304(B) IPC RI for 07 years Rs.500/- RI for 03 month 02. 498-A IPC RI for 02 years Rs.500/- RI for 03 months All the substantive jail sentences were directed to be run concurrently BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.24 17:24:04 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, marriage of deceased Sandhya was solemnized with appellant Kashinath Gupta on 15.5.2002 and Gouna was solemnized n 06.3.2003. Thereafter Sandhya was residing at her matrimonial home at village Hariharpur. On 19.01.2004 at about 12.30 hours Radhe Shyam, elder brother of appellant Kashinath, lodged merg report (Ex- P/1) in Police Station Pratapur Distt.Surguja that dead body of Sandhya was floating on the water of the well. Inquest (Ex-P/5) was conducted by the police, postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Jitendra Kunjam (PW-8). Pieces of lung, liver, kidney, heart, stomach and its contents, small intestine and tibia bone were seized vide Ex-P/9. Water of the well in a bottle was seized vide Ex-P/2, ornaments were seized from appellant Usha Gupta vide Ex-P/3 & P/4. Spot map (Ex-P/6) was prepared by the police. On the basis of merg report, FIR has been lodged vide Ex-P/10. In the merg inquiry, it was found that deceased Sandhya died in suspicious condition, within seven years of her marriage and the appellants used to harass her on account of demand of dowry. Her husband Kashinath Gupta was having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law Usha Gupta (bhabhi). The appellants were arrested vide Ex-P/12 to P/14. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 304(B) and 498A, 34 of the IPC was filed against the appellants before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, thereafter the case was transferred to the concerned Upper Sessions Judge. 3. The learned Upper Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants/accused under Sections 498A and 304 B IPC, alternatively charge under Sections 302 and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants abjured guilt and prayed for trial. 3 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 21 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 30.4.2005 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. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 Smt. Janiya @ Jugiya Bai has died, therefore, instant appeal has been abated against her. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is the case of the prosecution that dead body of Sandhya was found in an open well, near to which her slippers, lota, bucket with which water fetched from the well, were found. Though there is allegation of demand of dowry by the appellants, as also about the character of the appellant Kashinath, who was husband of the deceased, but all these allegations are only based on hearsay witnesses, i.e. mother, father and other relatives of the deceased and the allegation levelled against the appellants are omnibus in nature and no specific fact has been mentioned that as to when and in which manner the alleged cruelty was extended towards the deceased by the appellants. He further submits that to prove the offence under Section 304 B IPC, it is settled law that the prosecution is obliged to prove that the deceased was harassed on demand of dowry soon before her death, but this fact has not been proved 4 by the prosecution and only general allegation has been levelled that the deceased was harassed by the appellant on the demand of dowry. He further submits that relative witnesses of the deceased themselves have admitted that the marriage was solemnized peacefully and no demand was made by the appellants. If there had been any subsequent demand, a complaint would have been made before the society or the police, but no such complaint was made by any of them. If the deceased had been harassed for the dowry and she died on account of such cruelty, then her parents might have lodged an FIR after the death of the deceased narrating aforesaid facts, but no FIR was lodged by them, rather FIR was lodged by the police on the basis of merg report. He further submits that the deceased fell into the water while drawing water from the well, thus, her death was accidental, however, since the deceased died, the parents and other relatives of the deceased, in a fit of rage, have levelled false allegation of demand of dowry against the appellants. Without any cogent evidence, the learned Upper Sessions Judge has 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. 8. 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment. 10. As per the case of the prosecution and its witnesses, marriage of the deceased with appellant Kashinath was solemnized on 15.5.2002 and her Gouvna was solemnized on 06.3.2003. Thereafter she was residing with the appellants/accused persons. Her dead body was found in the well in the 5 morning at about 5.00 am of 19.01.2004. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Jitendra Kunjam (PW-8), who opined that cause of death of the deceased was drowning. He had also preserved viscera and tibia bone for diatom test, which were seized by the investigating officer vide Ex-P/9, however, neither FSL report has been filed/proved by the prosecution nor diatom test report has been filed/proved. Despite that, having gone through the evidence on record, it has rightly been held by the Upper Sessions Judge that the deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances, within 07 years of her marriage. Hence, finding recorded by learned Upper Sessions Judge in this count is affirmed. 11. Harikrishna (PW-1) is father of the deceased, Shakuntala Bai (PW-11) is mother of the deceased, Sanjeet Kumar Gupta (PW-12) is brother of the deceased, Rajkumar (PW-13) is maternal grandfather of the deceased and Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-19) is maternal uncle (mama) of the deceased. All these witnesses have stated that the deceased had told them that the appellants used to harass her on account of demand of ornaments and motor cycle. She had also told them that her husband Kashinath had illicit relation with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Smt. Usha Gupta (appellant No.3). However, they have not specifically stated in their deposition that when the deceased had told them about aforesaid facts. 12. Shakuntala Bai (PW-11), mother of the deceased and Sanjeet Kumar Gupta (PW-12), brother of the deceased had stated in their deposition that second time when the deceased came to her parental home, they sent her back with her husband only when Shyamlal, who is brother in law of appellant Kashinath, had convinced them. But they did not clearly state that the deceased was refusing to go with her husband. Shyam Lal has also not been examined by the police. 6 13. About aforesaid allegations levelled against the appellants, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are hearsay witnesses and it is all omnibus type of statements, no specific facts have been mentioned as to when the deceased had told them about said allegations. PW-4, PW-5, PW- 6, PW-7, PW-9 & PW-10 are resident of the village of the appellants, where the deceased committed suicide. But they have not stated that any complaint was made to the village forum or senior persons of the village or society about alleged harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellants. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was harassed by the appellants on account of demand of dowry soon before her death and because of that she died. 15. The case of the prosecution itself is that the deceased was found dead in a well, this fact first came into the knowledge of Urmila, W/o. complainant Radheshaym, who is elder brother of appellant Kashinath, who lodged merg report. In the morning at about 5.00 am, when Smt. Urmila went to fetch water from the well, there she saw slippers of the deceased, lota and bucket, which made her suspicious and thereafter on being searched, the deceased was not found, hence when iron hooks were put inside the well, dead body of the deceased was found. Having considered this fact of the prosecution itself, it cannot be ruled out that while fetching water, the deceased might have fallen into the well and therefore, she died due to drowning. Dr. Jitendra Kunjam (PW-8) has also opined in the postmortem report that cause of death of deceased was drowning. Viscera and diatom report has not been filed/proved by the prosecution. 16. On due consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the charge of demand of dowry against the appellants has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence. As also, the 7 allegation of alleged illicit relation of appellant Kashinath with appellant Usha Gupta has also not been proved by any reliable evidence. However, it appears from the deposition of the parents and brother of the deceased that the deceased had doubt about the character of her husband Kashinath. Even though there would have been such doubts, since the prosecution has not proved the necessary ingredients for convicting the appellants under Section 498A or 304B IPC, it cannot be ruled out that cause of death of the deceased might have accidental. Hence, even though she had doubts about her husband, she might have informed her parents and other relatives. Only on this count charges levelled against the appellants cannot be held proved. 17. The learned Upper Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants only on the basis of very weak type of evidence, that too are hearsay evidence and without proving necessary ingredients for the said charges, hence, impugned judgment is not found to be sustainable. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A IPC are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the said charges. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today, in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 19. 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