1 2026:CGHC:23097 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 24.04.2026 15.05.2026 -- 15.05.2026 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 219 of 2010 Shashikala Bafana W/o Shri Amritlal Bafana, aged about 48 years, R/o Anand Kushal Niwas, Brahmanpara, Durg, Police Station- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S- Durg, Distt.-Durg, C.G. ---State For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. along with Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgement 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 17.03.2010 passed by learned XIIth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) in Sessions Trial No. 42/2008, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 304 -(B) of IPC R.I. for 7 year Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased Sonal was solemnized with Manish Bafana on 18.06.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. PW-6 Surajmal Jain, is the father of the deceased and the appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Sonal. It is the allegation of the prosecution that soon after the marriage, approximately within a period of fifteen days, the appellant began subjecting the deceased Sonal to cruelty and harassment on account of dissatisfaction with the dowry allegedly brought by her. The appellant is stated to have taunted the deceased repeatedly, asserting that the dowry was not commensurate with the status of her parental family. Subsequently, the husband of the deceased Sonal secured employment at Kolkata and took the deceased with him to reside there. However, during the occasion of the ‘Teej’ festival, the parents of the deceased brought her back to her parental home. It is further alleged that thereafter, the appellant called the deceased back to her matrimonial home, but refused to permit her to rejoin her husband at Kolkata unless she fulfilled an unlawful demand of money amounting to Rs. 10–15 lakhs. During this period, the deceased was allegedly subjected to continuous harassment and mental cruelty in connection with the illegal persistent demand. On the date of the incident, i.e., 21.12.2006, at approximately 9:00 AM, the appellant is alleged to have physically assaulted the deceased and forcibly expelled her from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased proceeded to her parental house by rickshaw, where she narrated the entire incident and the harassment meted out to her. It is the further case of the prosecution that later the same day in the evening, being unable to bear the sustained cruelty and humiliation, the deceased committed suicide by 3 jumping from the terrace of her parental home. She was immediately taken for medical treatment to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, Bhilai, where she succumbed to her injuries. Following the incident, PW-6 Surajmal Jain lodged a written report before Police Station Durg, on the basis of which a criminal case was registered against the accused person. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted vide Ex. P/1, the slip of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital is Ex.P/2, inquest intimation is Exs. P/3 and 4, information given to the witnesses is Ex.P/5, Panchnama of the dead body is Ex. P/6, the spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex. P/7, the written complaint given by Surajmal to the police station regarding the incident is Ex. P/8, an FIR was registered vide Ex. P/9. Spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P/10 and the map prepared by the City Superintendent of Police, Durg vide Ex.P/11, the discharge certificate regarding the deceased is Ex.P/12, the information given by Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital regarding the MLC case is Ex.P/13, the death certificate of the deceased given by the doctor is Ex.P/14, the documents related to the treatment of the deceased are Exs. P/15 and 16, the form related to the return of the dead body after examination is Ex.P/20, the dead body supurdnama is Ex.P/21, the arrest memo is Ex.P/22, the schedule related to the mobile phone certified by the Station House Officer, Durg is Ex.P/23, the informed consent letter of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai is Ex.P/25. During the investigation, statements of Prakash Parihar, Anita Surana, Surajmal Shanti Prakashchandra, Shivli, Shailesh, Sushant, Vinita were recorded. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, 4 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 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case and pleaded her innocence and false implication in the case. However, six witness examined by her in her defence. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. It is respectfully submitted that there was a delay of five days in lodging the FIR (Ex.P/6) by PW-6, the father of the deceased. No satisfactory or plausible explanation has been provided for such inordinate delay. It is a well-settled principle of law that a delay in reporting the incident may cast serious doubts on the credibility and authenticity of the prosecution story. The delay itself suggests that the FIR may have been concocted, prepared by a “law-knowing mind” after the fact, rather than being a spontaneous and contemporaneous report 5 of the alleged incident. Learned trial Court has overlooked crucial medical evidence. It is clear from Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4 that the cause of death is consistent with accidental injury due to a fall in the bathroom, not a deliberate act of suicide from the terrace. Notably, there is no eye- witness who saw the deceased fall from the terrace and the family members, having special knowledge of the actual circumstances, themselves disclosed the fall in the bathroom. Further, the statement of Dr. Akhilesh Yadav confirms that the nature and pattern of injuries on the body of the deceased could not have resulted from a fall from the alleged height of 40 feet. The trial Court has disregarded these medical facts, which decisively negate the prosecution’s theory of suicide from the terrace as a result of cruelty. It is submitted that the alleged incident leading to death occurred in the parental house of the deceased. At the time of the incident, the accused/appellant and her family members were not present at the house. This fundamental fact destroys the chain of causation required under Section 304-B IPC for establishing liability for dowry death. The prosecution has failed to prove any direct or indirect involvement of the appellant in causing harassment or cruelty leading to the alleged death. While the prosecution has alleged harassment for dowry, it is critical to note that mere general statements regarding dissatisfaction over dowry are insufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 304-B IPC. Here, no credible evidence has been adduced to establish any continuous harassment by the appellant immediately preceding the death. The vague allegations, uncorroborated by independent witnesses or documentary proof, cannot sustain a conviction for dowry death. Thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are highly perverse and the impugned 6 judgment of conviction and order of sentence being bad in law is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shoor Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand. 1 . 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Sonal died within 07 years of marriage, solemnized with Manish Bafana, son of the appellant and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant for demand of dowry. The learned trial Court meticulously evaluated the oral and documentary evidence, rightly appreciating the credibility of witnesses and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are wholly justified and the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. In support of their contention, they relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab2 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is evident from record of learned trial Court that it framed charge against the appellant for offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 10. Before learned trial Court, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased, 1 (2025) 2 SCC 815 2 (2015) 6 SCC 477 7 Sonal was the appellant’s daughter-in-law and was married to the son of the appellant namely Manish Bafana on 18.04.2006. She died on 21.12.2006, within seven years of the marriage under unnatural circumstances. 11. PW-13, Dr. B.L. Chandrakar examined the deceased Sonal Jain on 21.12.2006 and observed a fracture on her hand. In view of her critical condition, she was shifted to the ICU, where she died at 11:10 P.M. According to her husband, the injuries were caused by a fall in the bathroom. 12. Looking to the statement of PW-3 Akhilesh Yadav, who conducted post- mortem of the deceased Sonal Jain, it is evident that her death resulted from a fall from the terrace. He gave his post-mortem report vide Ex. P/1. In para 9 of his cross-examination, he stated as under:- “9. कोई भी बलपूवक आयी उपरो्ሹ ्ቚकार की चोटे दु्ቈटना से भी आ सकती है या पहुंचायी भी जा सकती है या सुसाईडल ्ቚकृ तित की भी हो सकती है । 13. Having regard to the statement of PW-3, Dr. Akhilesh Yadav and his post-mortem report (Ex. P/1), it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the exact nature of the death of the deceased Sonal Jain, whether suicidal, homicidal or accidental. 14. The learned trial court minutely appreciated the statements of the doctors as well as the testimony of the defence witness, Dr. Ku. Sunanda Dhege (DW-6), a handwriting expert. However, the court did not form an opinion regarding the exact nature of the death of the deceased and concluded only that the deceased had died under unnatural circumstances. 8 15. PW-1, Prakash Parihar, a neighbor of the deceased and the appellant, stated that he occasionally heard loud noises, like quarrels, from the house of Shashikala (appellant) When he inquired, the deceased disclosed that she was unhappy in her marital home, alleging that her in-laws withheld food and prevented her from visiting her sister’s house. She also mentioned that her mother-in-law harassed her over the dowry, claiming her parents had not given sufficient dowry commensurate with their status. 16. PW-2, Anita Surana, cousin of the deceased Sonal, stated that the deceased had informed her that her mother-in-law was subjecting her to cruelty and harassment because she was dissatisfied with the dowry, which was allegedly less than 15–20 lakhs considering her parental family’s financial status. During her cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased Sonal had passed B.E. from Shankaracharya Engineering College and she also admitted this suggestion that the husband of the deceased Manish and his family members had proposed that Sonal would not do any job after marriage. Further, she admitted this suggestion that the marriage of the deceased Sonal was solemnized in a hospice (dharamsala). 17. PW-6 Surajmal Jain, father of the deceased Sonal has stated that her daughter informed him that her mother-in-law was subjecting her to cruelty and harassment because she was dissatisfied with the dowry, which was allegedly less than 10-15 lakhs considering her parental family’s financial status. In paras 9 and 10, he stated as under:- 9 “ 9. सोनल की सास सोनल को कलक्ቈा भेजने के लिलये तैयार नही थी जिजस रात सोनल कलक्ቈा गई उसी रात उसके दादा ससुर का देहांत हो गया । आरोपी यह कहती थी किक जब 10, 15 लाख रूपया सोनल ले आयेगी तो उसे कलक्ቈा भेजेंगे। पर सोनल के दादा ससुर मना करते थे। कि/र ऐसी बाते ठीक नहीं है समाज मे अच्छा नही लगता । मनीषं वहां अके ला है सोनल यहां क्यों रहेगी दोनों को साथ - साथ रहना चाकिहये इन सब बातो के कारण शैलैष ने सोनल की दादा ससुर के कहने पर सोनल की टीकट बनाई थी। टीकट बनने की जानकारी जब आरोपी को लगी तो वह सोनल से बातचीत करना बंद कर दी, खाना पीना नहीं देती थी जिजस किदन सोनल कलक्ቈा जा रही थी उस किदन आरोपी का पैर पड़ने के लिलये गयी तो आरोपी अपने रूम का दरवाजा बंद कर दी पैर भी नहीं पड़ने दी । सोनल ने अपने साथ हुयी ्ቈटना की जानकारी किवकिनता को दी जब दोनो कलक्ቈा पहुंचे तो मनीषं स्टेशन में किमला वह सुटके श भी रखा या मनीषं ने स्टेशन मे बताया किक दादा ससुर खतम हो गये है इसलिलये वापस दुग चलना है उसी किदन सोनल और मनीषं वापस दुग आ गये किवकिनता कलक्ቈा में रुक गई। 10. दुग आने के बाद दादा ससुर के कि@या@म का काय@म किनपट गया उसके बाद हमारे ्ቈर, सोनल आयी थी तो उस समय सोनल ने वह सभी बाते बतायी जो मैने अभी कलक्ቈा जाने वाली बात जो उपर बतायी है। उसी किदन शाम को मनीषं हमारे ्ቈर आया तब मैंने उनसे बात की तो मनीषं बोला की मैं अपनी माँ को समझा लूंगा ऐसी बात नही होगी सोनल को आगे तकली/ नही होगी किपर मनीषं सोनल को लेकर मालवीय नगर दुग चला गया। " During his cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant is a housewife and that her daugher Sonal was an educated woman who had completed her B.E. She also admitted the defence’s suggestion that in his Jain community, there is no dowry culture. In para 29 of his cross-examination, he also admitted that "यह कहना सही है है किक 25 तारीख के पहले हम लोगों ने कभी कोई रिरपोट नहीं की है। 10 हमने समाज में भी इस बात की कोई रिरपोट नही की ।" In para 50 of his cross-examination, he stated that in his written report (Ex.P/8), the fact to bring 10–15 lakhs by her daughter ₹ Sonal, may have been omitted. In paragraph 53 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not mention the harassment and cruelty related to dowry in the inquest memo. 18. PW-7, Shanti Kankariya, mother of the deceased, stated the same story that her daughter Sonal had informed her that her mother-in-law/ appellant, subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing over a meagre dowry, allegedly less than 10–15 lakhs, considering her ₹ parental family’s financial status. In paras 17 of 18 of her cross-examination, she stated as under:- 17 . सोनल के शव पंचनामा के समय में मौजूद नही थी। जिजस समय सोनल के छत से कू दने की ्ቈटना हुयी उस समय उस स्थान पर तीन पेड़ था। 18. मेरे सामने आरोपी ने सोनल के साथ दहेज की मांग, ्ቚताड़ना मारपीट … की कोई ्ቈटना नही की। ्ቈटना के बारे मे मैने सुना है ..” 19. PW-8, Prakash Chand Jain, uncle of the deceased Sonal has stated that deceased’s mother-in-law/ appellant, subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing her over dowry, allegedly less than 10–15 ₹ lakhs and also abused her by using filthily language. In para 6, he stated that he heard a commotion outside his house that someone had fallen from the rear side of the terrace. On rushing out, he saw Sonal lying in Tamrakar’s plot. On reaching her, he noticed a tree branch stuck in her hand, which he removed and observed that blood was 11 gushing forth from her body. He then took her to the hospital for treatment. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant- Shashikala Bafana, did not utter a word about the deceased Sonal in his presence. 20. PW-9, Shivli Kankariya, sister of the deceased Sonal, stated that Sonal had informed her that her mother-in-law/appellant had assaulted her, expelled her from the house and demanded 10–15 lakhs as a dowry. ₹ On the same evening, her uncle Prakash came and asked about Sonal, instructing her to call her sister. Then, she went to the room to look for her sister Sonal, but did not find her. As she was moving towards another room, she heard someone voice from outside that someone had fallen from the house. She then went to the balcony and saw that her sister Sonal had fallen into Tamrakar’s plot, located at the rear of the house. In her cross-examination, she stated that Sonal apprised her mother that her mother-in-law expelled her out from the marital house. 21. PW-11 Shailesh Kankariya, brother of the deceased, has stated that the mother-in-law of his sister subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing her, demanding that she bring 10–15 lakhs, after which she ₹ could go with her husband Manish, to Kolkata. He further stated that all the aforesaid facts were narrated by his sister to their parents when she visited her parental home, and not to him.” In paras 2 and 3, he stated as under:- “2. यह बात जब सोनल के दादा ससुर मानमल जी को पता चली तो उन्होंने मुझे बुलाया और मुझसे बोला किक सोनल को मनीष के पास कलक्ቈा मेजना है। मैने 12 यह बात ्ቈर आकर पापा को बतायी। कि/र मैने 5 जिसतम्बर की किटकिकट बनायी क्योंकिक मेरी चाचा की लडकी किबकिनता जलगांव से कलक्ቈा जाने वाली थी उसी के साथ मैने सोनल की भी किटकिकट बनवा ली। मैं सोनल के दादा ससुर को जाकर बताया और सोनल को लेने गया उस समय दादा ससूर मानमल जी नीचे थे और सोनल की सास उपर कमरे में बैठी थी । सोनल अपनी सास से किमलने उपर गयी, दरवाजा बंद था तो वापस आ गई । कि/र मैं सोनल को ले कर स्टेशन चला गया। 3. जिजस किदन सोनल यहां से कलक्ቈा रवाना हुई उस किदन सोनल के दादा ससुर का देहान्त हो गया तब सोनल अपने पतित के साथ वापस आ गयी। सोनल के दादा ससूर के मृत्यु काय@म के बाद जब सोनल हमारे ्ቈर आयी तो उसने बताया किक जब उसकी सांस को यह पता चला किक सोनल कलक्ቈा जा रही है तो वह सोनल से बातचीत करना बंद कर किदया, सोनल को दो किदन से खाना भी नही किदया। सोनल के दादा ससूर ने अपने बहु आरोकिपया को कहा किक अपने ्ቈर में यह बात अच्छी नही है किक लेनदेन की मांग करें। सोनल ने यह बताया था किक उसे बाथरूम में बंद कर देती थी उसके साथ नौकरों जैसा व्यवहार करती थी । यह सब बातों को सोनल ने मेरे मम्मी पापा को बतायी था मैं बही पास खड़ा था इसलिलये मुझे भी मालुम है। " During his cross-examination, he stated that he had disclosed all the aforesaid facts in his police statement (Ex. D/7). If those facts are not mentioned therein, he is unable to explain the reason for such omission. 22. PW-12, Pushpa Kochar, the aunt of the deceased Sonal, categorically stated that Sonal’s parents had informed her that Sonal’s mother-in- law/appellant persistently subjected Sonal to harassment and cruelty in connection with unlawful demands for dowry. 23. PW-18, Vinita Bafana, the cousin of the deceased Sonal, stated that Sonal herself had confided that the appellant/mother-in-law 13 continuously subjected her to persecution on account of meagre dowry. 24. Defence witness- Manish Jain, the husband of the deceased Sonal and son of the appellant was examined before the learned Trial Court as DW-1. He deposed that the family members of the deceased never raised any grievance or complaint regarding any demand for money, nor did they ever level allegations of physical or mental harassment against the appellant. He further stated that his wife Sonal wished to live with him in Kolkata and accordingly accompanied Vinita to Kolkata and upon arrival her at Kolkata, he went to station to take her wife Sonal, meanwhile he received a call from his mother informing him about the death of his grandfather, following which they returned to Durg. He deposed that on the date of the incident, he was at his office and his mobile phone was discharged, due to which he could not be contacted to anyone. He further stated that his uncle Suresh informed him that Sonal had fallen in the bathroom, sustained injuries and had been admitted to the hospital. During his cross-examination, he denied all suggestions put forth by the prosecution that his mother/appellant, had ever made any unlawful demands for dowry from his wife Sonal or had subjected her to any form of pressure or harassment in that regard. 25. DW-2 Jagmohan Jain stated that on the date of the incident, while he was travelling from Raipur to Bhilai, he received a call from Padam informing him that the deceased Sonal had fallen and had been admitted to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital. He further deposed that he thereafter went to the hospital and inquired from Surajmal/ father of the deceased, about the incident, to which Surajmal replied that his 14 daughter had fallen in the bathroom and as her condition was critical, she had been shifted to the ICU. 26. DW-3 Kantilal Parakh stated that the deceased Sonal had handed over the house keys to him before going to her parental home, instructing him that if her mother-in-law/appellant came asking for her, the keys should be given to her. He further deposed that thereafter he went to Kawardha, and upon his return, he came to know about Sonal’s accident. He also stated that he later learned that she had fallen from the terrace. 27. DW-4 Rajendra Kumar Kothari, a relative of both the deceased and the appellant, stated that he attended the funeral of deceased Sonal and during his visits to Prakash Kankariya’s house over a period of six months, he neither received any information regarding Sonal and Manish, nor came to know of any allegations of harassment. 28. A bare perusal of the record and careful examination of the statements of all witnesses clearly show that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt either the cause of death or the exact nature of the death of deceased Sonal. The evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and remains insufficient to establish a clear and definite version against the appellant. The statement of the relative of the deceased only indicate that there were used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased. Importantly, the father, mother, and brother of the deceased have clearly admitted in their statements that the appellant never made any demand for dowry from them, they were only apprised of the illegal dowry demands by the deceased. 15 29. It has been held by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Shoor Singh (Supra) in paras 15 and 16 which read as under:- “15. To constitute a ‘dowry death’, punishable under Section 304- B IPC, following ingredients must be satisfied: i death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; iii. soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and iv. such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry. 16. When all the above ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that he has committed the offence of ‘dowry death’. What is important is that the presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in connection with any demand for dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of ‘dowry death’. The 16 presumption, however, is in respect of commission of the offence of ‘dowry death’ by the accused when all the essential ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved beyond reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence, which means that to prove the essential ingredients of an offence of ‘dowry death’ the burden is on the prosecution. 30. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as well as, it is clear in the present case that the prosecution has only been able to establish that the deceased Sonal died within seven years of her marriage and that her death was unnatural, but prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant that the deceased Sonal was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death regarding the demand of dowry. Thus, prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of said offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, but learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts minutely and gave thereby wrong findings and thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 31. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2010 of the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against her. 32. 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 along with an undertaking that in the event of 17 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. 33. 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 AMIT PATEL