1 2026:CGHC:6813-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 05.12.2025 06.02.2026 -- 06.02.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 20 of 2013 Pankaj Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Gaurilal Chandra Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Satgarh, Post Pihrid, Tah. And Ps Malkharuada, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (Brother of the deceased) versus 1 - Rameshwar Chandra, S/o Shri Umendram Chandra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Arasiya, P.S.- Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Umendram Chandra S/o Shri Dilchand Chandra Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Arasiya, P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 – Punibai, W/o Shri Umendram Chandra, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Arasiya, P.S.- Jaijaipur, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa C.G. 4 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station In Charge, P.S.- Jaijaipur, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa C.G., District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh .... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 For Respondents No. 1 to 3/Accused : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C A V Judgement Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 09.11.2012 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 100/2011, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and in alternate Sections 306/34 and 302/34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Rajkumari was married to the accused Rameshwar Chandra in the year 2006. Accused Umendra Ram is the deceased Rajkumari's father-in-law and accused Puni Bai is her mother-in-law. Rajkumari had been living in her in-laws' village- Arsiya, since their marriage and had been working as an Anganwadi worker for two years. After one year of their marriage, accused Rameshwar Prasad Chandra and Umendra Ram had been harassing and assaulting the deceased Rajkumari in connection with demand of dowry and demanding one lakh rupees from her maternal home. Accused Umendra Ram had taken the jewellery of his daughter-in- law/Rajkumari that she had brought from her maternal home, despite this the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment from the accused persons regarding the illegal persistent demands of more jewellery. Since Rajkumari had no children, accused Umendra Ram was forcing her into illicit relations with him in order to have children. 3 Therefore, before 19/07/2010, Rajkumari had been living at her maternal home in village Satgarh and had filed a complaint before S.D.M against the accused persons regarding the cruelty and harassment she was subjected to. She had also given a statement against the accused persons in the Sakti court regarding her subjection to cruelty and harassment. However, after a social meeting in village Kekrabhant was convened, accused Rameshwar Chandra and two other persons took Rajkumari to their house. The accused did not allow Rajkumari to talk on mobile phone at her maternal home. Being fed up by the illegal persistent demands and her subjection to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws, on 10/01/2011 at 7:00 pm, Rajkumari went to her bedroom and committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting herself ablaze. On 10/01/2011, the accused Umendram went to Police Station- Jaijaipur and informed about the above incident, on which, Sub-Inspector S.S. Thakur registered the morgue report vide Ex.P/11. During the investigation, Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate- Atul Shetty had prepared the panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Rajkumari before the witnesses vide Ex.P/6. The postmortem of Rajkumari's body was conducted by Dr. S.L Banjare, gave report vide Ex.P/12, wherein stated that Rajkumari died due to suffocation caused by excessive burns (about 90 percent burns). Statements of witnesses were recorded. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/9. On production by accused Umendra Ram, two jerry cans, one containing kerosene and the other empty, and a matchbox were seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/8). Constable Virendra Kanwar seized a sealed plastic box containing the lungs, liver, spleen, kidney and heart of the deceased and another sealed plastic box containing the small intestine, large intestine and stomach of the 4 deceased as per seizure memo (Ex.P/10). Spot map was prepared by Patwari. The seized articles were sent to F.S.L Raipur for its chemical examination. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the 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 acquitted the accused/respondents of charges punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and in alternate Section 306/34 and Section 302/34 of IPC. against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct perspective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondents, but despite the same, the accused/respondents have been acquitted. He further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting respondent no.1 to 3/accused persons, especially when the evidences available on record show that the deceased- Rajkumari had been subjected to cruelty just for demand of dowry and even she was forced by her father-in-law- Umendram (the respondent no.2) to establish sexual relationship with him which is well corroborated from the statement of the deceased given before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sakti. Learned Trial Court has erred in believing the concocted story (projected by the accused persons) of illicit relationship of the deceased with Shankar Chandra and Prabhu Chandra. He would further submit that the accused persons used to demand of rupees one lakh after the marriage and used to mentally harass her for not conceiving the child. It is worth to be noticed that the counsel has 5 been changed on behalf of the accused persons during the course of cross examination of the mother of the deceased -Smt. Annapurna Devi (P.W.3) and just on account of change in counsel, the further cross examination of Smt. Annapurna Devi (P.W.3) was adjourned and also there were sign and symptoms of blood oozing from the mouth of the deceased which shows that either the deceased has been murdered or she has been subjected to physical cruelty or harassment, but the trial court utterly failed to consider the aforesaid facts. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 5. We have 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 it framed charges under Section 304/34 of IPC and in alternate Section 306/34 and Section 302 of IPC and Section 201 of IPC against the accused/respondents and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges. 7. It is not disputed before learned trial Court that accused/respondent No. 1 is the husband of the deceased (Rajkumari), their marriage was 6 solemnized in the year of 2006 and also it is not disputed that deceased died on 10.01.2011 due to burn injuries. 8. PW-1 Gauri Lal Chandra, father of the deceased has stated that after the marriage of his daughter (deceased), she was was living with the accused in her in-laws' house at village Arsiya. After marriage, the accused treated her well for 2-4 months and the accused Rameshwar used to demand one lakh rupees from the deceased from her maternal home by saying that he would open a shop in Jaijaipur with that money. On this, when daughter Rajkumari expressed her inability, accused Rameshwar used to tell her to sell her maternal's farm and bring one lakh rupees. When his daughter came to maternal home, she apprised the said fact to them. In his cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that a year after the marriage, when accused Rameshwar was unemployed, he apprised the fact through his daughter Rajkumari that he wanted to open a grocery store in Jaijaipur and that he was moving to Jaijaipur and wanted to live separate from his parents. He again admitted that daughter Rajkumari had told him on the phone that Rameshwar Chandra will live separate from his family after taking his share of property from his father and opening a shop in Jaijaipur, but he later denied the same by stating that his daughter had not told him as mentioned above. In para 16 of his cross- examination, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that neighborhood of the locality of the house of the accused, apprised him that his daughter Rajkumari had locked herself inside the room and set herself ablaze. The victim succumbed to her injuries despite rescue efforts by neighbors, who broke down the door and attempted to extinguish the flames with sand and water. In paragraph 21 of his cross-examination, the witness had stated in his statement that his 7 daughter Rajkumari, lived happily with her in-laws for a year following her marriage and that the accused made no demands for dowry at the time of the wedding. 9. PW-2 Janta Bai Chandra has stated that on the date of incident, Rajkumari was in a room and the door of that room was locked from inside and the deceased was burning inside the room. Then, her husband and Vijendra Chandra broke the door of that room with a sabbal (iron rod). By then, many other persons from the village namely Parvati Chandra, Galgalheen Chandra, Padahardiheen, Vijendra's father, Navdha had arrived. Upon breaking the door, they saw that the room was filled with smoke, Rajkumari was burning, lying on the ground. 10. PW-3 Annapurna Devi, mother of the deceased, stated that the accused persons always used to demand money from her daughter from her maternal home and she was apprised of this fact by her daughter. In para 14 of her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that they borrowed the money from the accused Umendra to perform the marriage of their son. In para 20 of her cross- examination, she further denied the suggestion by saying that her daughter had an illicit relationship with Shankar Chandra and the same was witnessed by some villagers or her husband/accused Rameshwar, causing her to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze. 11. PW-4 Pankaj Kumar Chandra, brother of the deceased has stated that after the marriage, her sister came to his house and told him that her husband wanted to open a grocery shop at Jaijaipur and was demanding the money of one lakh rupees from her maternal home. In his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that his marriage was 8 solemnized after the marriage of his sister, but denied this suggestion that they borrowed the money of Rs. 76,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- from Umendram to perform his marriage. He admitted that when the deceased Rajkumari informed them that the accused Rameshwar Chandra, demanded one lakh rupees from her maternal home to open a shop, they failed to file a complaint regarding this matter to the village community or police. 12. PW-6 Vijendrajeet Chandra has stated that on the date of incident, he heard the noise of cries and screams coming from the house of the accused. Upon hearing this, he went to the house of the accused and saw that accused Rameshwar, Umendram and Punibai were pushing the door to open of the deceased’s room and on his asking, accused Rameshwar apprised this fact that his wife Rajkumari had locked the door of the room from inside and was not opening it. Meanwhile, on hearing the noise, the neighbourhood had come and they all tried to get the door opened, but the deceased did not open the door, then they broke the door by hitting it with the sabbal (iron rod) and went inside the room, the room was filled with smoke, the deceased was lying on the ground. 13. Upon comprehensive evaluation of record and close scrutiny of the testimony from all witnesses, it is evident that the prosecution has only established that the deceased Rajkumari died from burn injuries sustained while she was locked inside the room. 14. PW- 14 Dr. S.L. Banjare has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and stated that nature of death is suicidal, he gave his report vide Ex. P/12. 9 15. PW-1- Gauri Lal Chandra (Father), PW-3 Annapurna Devi (Mother) and PW-4 Pankaj Kumar Chandra (Brother) of the deceased Rajkumari have stated that the accused had demanded money, but in their statements, it is not clear that soon before death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry, they admitted the suggestion of defence that the accused/husband of the deceased had demanded the money for opening the grocery shop through his wife/deceased. 16. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. the State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 LiveLaw SC 341 held in paras 4, 5, 10 and 11 as under:- “4……...The presumption in regard to dowry death can be raised in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘IEA’) only if it is shown that soon before death, such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with the demand of dowry. 5. If the evidence led by the prosecution is examined, no case for conviction under Section 304B or 498A IPC can possibly be made out as none of the witnesses have stated that there was any harassment or cruelty to the deceased or demand of dowry immediately before her death. The marriage took place in the year 1993, the deceased died on 22.6.1995. None of the family members of the deceased including her father, maternal grandmother or the maternal uncle have stated anything about the harassment of the deceased immediately before her death in connection with demand of dowry. In fact, the maternal grandmother and two maternal uncles who were living at distance of about one farlang from the village of the deceased were even present at the time of her cremation. They 10 did not raise any issue either by lodging a complaint to the police or otherwise. In fact, it was admitted by the maternal grandmother and the uncles of the deceased that after the cremation, with the intervention of the panchayat, they had collected all the dowry articles. It was further submitted that intimation was also given to the father of the deceased who in fact was living at a distance of about 290 kms. However, the cremation could not be delayed on account of waiting for the arrival of the father of the deceased. 10. The conviction of the appellant is under Sections 3048 and 498A IPC raising presumption regarding dowry death within seven years of marriage. To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Section 304B and 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would be required. The same are extracted hereinbelow:- "304B. Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. For the purpose of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which 11 shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 113B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. -For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" 12 11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra). The opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which are extracted below:- "25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are: (i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and (ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as: (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), or (ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or 13 connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences. 27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the two offences.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-- inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must 14 specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 19. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL