1 2025:CGHC:13253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 230 of 2022 Judgment reserved on : 20.01.2025 Judgment delivered on : 20.03.2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Nishad S/o Krishna Nishad Aged About 22 Years 2 - Surtiya Bai Nishad, W/o Late Santosh Nishad Aged About 62 Years Both R/o Village Nagpura, Ward No.19, Chandi Chowk, Anjora, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in ST No.42/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted RAMAKANT NIRALA Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA Date: 2025.03.21 12:59:13 +0530 2 under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased Hemlata Nishad was solemnized with the accused Hemant on 12.06.2020. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the family members of the accused started harassing the deceased for demand of dowry by saying that she has not brought motorcycle, fridge etc. Thereafter the accused Hemant dropped her to her parental house. On 02.07.2020, when parents of the deceased had gone for work in the field and nobody was at home, she consumed pesticides, which was informed by Tanuram Nishad to her parents, thereafter her parents came and took her to Rajnandgaon Hospital, but she died during treatment. She died prior to 7 years of marriage. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused under Section 304-B of IPC. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appreciation of evidence with regard to the appellants is not proper and according to law. The offence against appellants/ 3 accused has not been proved at any corner beyond reasonable doubt. The version of complainant is not supported and corroborated by the independent witnesses, hence his statement is not trustworthy and reliable. There are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of complainant and witnesses. The learned trial Court had not given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act to the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court dated 18.10.2021 in CRA No.611/2015 in the matter of Kapil Barman and others vs State of Chhattisgarh and another connected matter. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in 4 para 1 of the judgment. 7. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that the marriage of the deceased Hemlata and the appellant Hemant was solemnized on 12.06.2020. It is also not disputed that the deceased Hemlata died on 02.07.2020 after few days of the marriage and she died within 7 years of marriage by committing suicide by consuming pesticides. 8. Jeevan Lal Nishad (PW-1) father of Hemlata stated that the marriage of Hemlata and the appellant was performed in the 6th month’s of the last year and she resided in her matrimonial house for 12-13 days and after that the appellant left her to his home and on the date of incident, his neighbor Tanu Nishad informed him that his daughter is behaving abnormal and when he reached there, he saw her frothing, thereafter he took her to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where the doctor upon examination declared her dead. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied the suggestion of the prosecution that the accused persons used to taunt her daughter for bringing less dowry. In the cross-examination in para 8, he admitted that after liking of his daughter and the appellant Hemant to each other the marriage was performed. It is also true that before marriage, dowry was not demanded. In para 9, he admitted that his daughter had come to his come happily with the appellant Hemant and the appellant Hemant had also gone happily after taking food. He also admitted that demand of dowry 5 is hearsay. He self stated that the same was told to him by his wife. 9. PW-2 Jugga Bai Nishad, mother of the deceased stated that after returning from her matrimonial home, her daughter remained silent and told her that his husband is not good and he is having relation with some other woman. She also stated that her daughter had told her that the appellants used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, then she admitted suggestion of prosecution that the accused Hemant told her that the deceased does not know how to cook food. In para 8 of the cross-examination, she admitted that Hemlata and Hemant liked each other and got married and it is also true that there is no demand of dowry in their society. It is also true that no demand of dowry was made by the accused at the time of marriage. In para 12, she stated that the accused had demanded dowry e.g. fridge, motorcycle etc., but the same was not complained by her to police station or at society level. She also admitted that at the time of postmortem, she admitted that at the time of postmortem when Tahsildar and policemen were present, she did not complain against the appellants of demand of dowry. 10. Dhaneshwar Nishad (PW-3), Arjun Lal Sinha (PW-4) and Baratu Ram Nishad (PW-5) stated about death of Hemlata but they have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them. Punita Bai Nishad (PW- 6 6) sister of the deceased stated that her husband used to tell her that he does not want a child because of which her sister was perplexed. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross- examined her, then she admitted this suggestion of prosecution that Hemlata had told her that Hemant and his mother used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. Devki Bai Nishad (PW-7) also stated that the appellants harassed her for bringing less dowry and she also stated that the deceased Hemlata had told her that the appellant Hemant used to tell her that he does not want a kid. Sitaram Nishad (PW-8) also stated that after 2-3 days of marriage, Hemlata had told her that the appellant and his father threw plate and quarreled with her, out of which she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil. 11. On close scrutiny of the statements of all the relatives of Hemlata, it is clear that Hemlata was disturbed because of her conduct and she also used to doubt the character of the appellant. The mother and father of the deceased also admitted that the accused persons did not demand any dowry at the time of marriage or after the marriage. 12. This Court observed in CRA No.611/2015 in paras 28, 29 & 30 as under:- 28. Though, in the instant case, the death of deceased Vinita Barman admittedly took place within seven years of the marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, i.e. by commission of suicide by Vinita Barman, but there appears to be no reliable evidence that the accused/appellants had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with 7 demand for dowry or otherwise. As per medical evidence, no any bodily injury internal or external was noticed by the Doctors conducting postmortem except the ligature mark around the neck. In these circumstances, presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked as there is nothing on record to show that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants have committed torture and cruelty upon the deceased in connection with demand of rupees one lakh as dowry. This apart, no any allegation was made against the appellants by the family members of the deceased during the course of inquest and admittedly the report was lodged after 20 days of the incident. Though the manner in which the incident occurred raises suspicion against the appellants but it is a well settled principle of law that graver the offence is, higher is the degree of proof and the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. In this case the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and being so, the benefit of doubt has to be credited to the appellants, thereby entitling them of acquittal of the charge. 29. In the matter of Baijnath and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: “Mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage not sufficient to convict accused under Ss. 304-B and 498-A and only when prosecution proves beyond doubt that deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, presumption under S. 113-B can be invoked. In the cited case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt cruelty or harassment meted out to deceased for dowry demand soon before her death. Alleged demand centred around motorcycle which admittedly did not surface at time of finalisation of marriage, and which demand allegedly lingered on for about two years but no complaint in respect thereof was made to anyone. On the contrary, testimonies of DWs were consistent to the effect that no demand as imputed was ever made nor was there any quarrel over the issue, which was also corroborated by Pws 3 and 7. Besides, benefit in deficiency of proof as to precise cause of death i.e. whether it was homicidal/suicidal, 8 and origin and cause of external injuries would enure to benefit of accused. Prosecution failed to prove crucial ingredient of cruelty and harassment by direct and cogent evidence thereby disentitling itself to benefit of statutory presumption under S. 113-B. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment convicting the appellants was set aside”. 30. So far as abetment of suicide is concerned, in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 21.In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. It is transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 13. In the present case also, it is clear that the marriage of the deceased and the accused Hemant was solemnized before few 9 days of the incident and the deceased Hemlata resided in her matrimonial home for 12-13 days. It is also clear that at the time of incident, Hemlata was living in her parental home and the mother and father of the deceased did not level any allegation against the appellants just after the incident and after some time they alleged against the appellants, but no specific date or time has been mentioned by the witnesses regarding demand of dowry or cruelty by the appellants to the deceased and the mother of the deceased also admitted that she never complained about demand of dowry to anybody. Even after the death of the deceased, no prompt report was lodged to the Police against the appellants, whereas the deceased died on 02.07.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 11.10.2020. 14. In view of the above discussions and the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained in absence of any evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide because of dowry harassment as such the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC is not sustainable. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 16. The appellant No.2 Surtiya Bai is on bail, whereas the appellant 10 No.1 Hemant Kumar Nishad is in jail. He be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other offence. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.1 Hemant Kumar is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, whereas the bail bond furnished by the appellant No.2 Surtiya Bai shall also continue. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. 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 Nirala