1 2025:CGHC:60694-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 297 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lalbagh Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus Hemant Das Manikpuri, S/o Neelkanth Manikpuri Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Sonesarar, P. S. Lalbagh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent For State/ Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, 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. 12/12/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/ State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.64/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.12.12 17:12:55 +0530 2 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Santoshi Manikpuri was solemnized with the respondent on 12.05.2013, who committed suicide by hanging herself on 14.2.2016 and, on account of her death, a merg intimation (Ex.P/21) was lodged before the Police Station-Lalbagh of Distt. Rajnandgaon, and thereafter, a written report (Ex.P/11) was lodged by her father on 07.06.2016 before the concerned Police Station, alleging inter alia, that one and half months after the solemnization of marriage of his daughter, she came to the house and informed that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband on account of demand of dowry. It is alleged further by him that her husband used to quarrel with the deceased immediately after solemnization of the marriage and, demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the Year 2014, and the alleged amount was given to him by his wife after withdrawing the same from the Women Self Help Group. Based upon his alleged allegation, an FIR (Ex.P/12) was registered against the respondent on 10.06.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. 3. Although, it was alleged by the father of the deceased in his report (Ex.P/11), lodged on 07.06.2016, that because of demand of dowry, his daughter was harassed and maltreated by his son-in- law immediately after the solemnization of her marriage, but, from perusal of the record, it appears that on account of her said demise on 14.02.2016, an inquiry was conducted based upon the 3 merg intimation (Ex.P/21), where no allegation as such regarding demand of dowry was alleged by father, mother and brother of her, as revealed from their statements as recorded vide (Ex.D/2) to (Ex.D/4). It appears further that since no allegation as such was alleged that she was harassed and maltreated by the respondent on account of demand of dowry, no offence under Section 304-B was, therefore, registered immediately upon her said demise on 14.02.2016. 4. Pertinently to be noted here further that even at the time of inquest (Ex.P/6) of her body, conducted on 14.2.2016, her father, mother and brother were present, but, none of them have raised any allegation as such and, contrarily it appears that, much after the said demise of the deceased, a report (Ex.P/11) was lodged by her father on 07.06.2016 i.e, about more than three and half moths from the occurrence of the alleged incident while alleging the alleged harassment by her husband. 5. What is, therefore, reflected from the record that when the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself on 14.02.2016, no allegation as such was made by father, mother and brother of her that she was harassed and maltreated by the respondent on account of demand of dowry, as revealed from their statements vide (Ex.D/2) to (Ex.D/4) recorded during the course of merg inquiry, nor even at the time of inquest of the dead body, and, the alleged allegation was made only after passing of 4 considerable period of more than three and half months by her father, i.e. on 07.06.2016. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that she was harassed or maltreated by the respondent on account of demand of dowry, soon before her death, as alleged by her father in his written report (Ex.P/11), lodged on 07.06.2016, so as to hold that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband soon before her death, as required under Section 304-B of IPC. 6. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan