1 2026:CGHC:27181-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 261 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ajay Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Meluram Nirmalkar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Meluram Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Sammatram Nirmalkar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Jugmati Bai, W/o Meluram Nirmalkar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Mulmula, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.02 18:15:07 +0530 2 Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 02/07/2026 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 16/01/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.130/2016, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased- Smt. Nimi Nirmalkar was solemnized with the respondent No.1- Ajay Nirmalkar on 01/05/2016 and three months after her marriage, she died on 14/08/2016 due to burn injury. On account of the alleged incident, a merg (Ex.P/17) was lodged by the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Meluram Nirmalkar stated therein that, he went to the field along with his wife- Jugmati Bai and his son- Ajay Nirmalkar and, daughter-in-law, namely, Nimi Nirmalkar were alone at home and after sometime, one Uttara Bai informed him that his daughter-in-law has burnt owing to which, he rushed to the spot along with his wife, where he has seen his daughter-in-law was died due to burn injury. 3. It appears further that, on 24/08/2016, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by deceased’s younger brother, namely, 3 Harish Prasad (PW-1) before the Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa alleging interalia that, after the solemnization of her marriage, she came to his elder brother’s house at Champa on 01/08/2016, where she stayed up to 10/08/2016 and when he was about to go to drop her in her in-laws’ house, it was informed by crying that, she was being maltreated and harassed by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law because for non-fulfilling the demand of Rs.20,000/- and also because of coming inadequate dowry. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P/7) was registered against the respondents and the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Rashmi Dahire (PW-6) and Dr. K.K. Dahire and vide the post- mortem report (Ex. P/6), it was opined by them that she died because of asphyxia owing to burn injury and, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mulmula, for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC, who in turn, has committed the matter to the concerned trial Court, where they have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302/34, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that deceased was harassed and maltreated because of the alleged demand of dowry owing to which, she died due to burn injury and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime as mentioned herein above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of her relatives have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Nimi Nirmalkar was solemnized with the respondent No.1- Ajay Nirmalkar on 01/05/2016 and she was 5 found to be dead on 14/08/2016 in her in-laws’ house on burning condition. It appears further that, a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by her brother- Harish Prasad (PW-1) on 24/08/2016, i.e. much after the occurrence of the alleged incident while alleging that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law for non-fulfilling their alleged demand, owing to which, she died due to burn injury on 14/08/2016. 10. Although, it was alleged by him as such, but from his testimony, it appears that though the alleged information was given to him by his deceased sister, however, the same was not disclosed by him to his father- Baharu. It reveals from para 6 of his testimony that, his brother-in-law, namely, Ajay Nirmalkar, the husband of his sister, was handicapped and was unable even to walk and it was revealed further from his testimony that, if he has seen him prior to the marriage of his sister, he would not have advised to his father for the solemnization of her marriage with him and, similarly is the statement of his another brother, namely, Anuj Ram (PW-2) and sister Anuj Bai (PW-9). His said sister Anuj Bai has also stated that since he (her sister’s husband) was handicapped, therefore, she was not happy and, it reveals from para 6 of her testimony that when her deceased sister was stayed for 08 days at her brother’s house at Champa, she was lived there happily and has never raised any complaint to anyone. Father of the deceased, namely, Baharu, who was examined as PW-15, has deposed in his evidence that his daughter has never raised 6 any compliant personally to him and rather, it reveals from his evidence, that she was living happily there in her in-laws’ house. From perusal of their testimonies, it appears that the deceased was not harassed and maltreated by them on account of demand of alleged dowry, but, in fact, was found to be unhappy because of her husband’s disability and, the trial Court, after taking note of these materials, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant