1 CGHC010294462026 2026:CGHC:36530-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2005 of 2026 1 - Chandulal S/o Late Ramnath Thakur Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Arasnara, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 632 of 2016 1 - Mantora Bai W/o Late Ramnath Thakur Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Arasnara Tehsil Patan District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Patan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocates. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 17.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Since both the appeals arise out of same incident and same Sessions Trial, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.20 11:25:50 +0530 2 2. Though the matter was listed for orders on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Chandulal (in CRA No.2005 of 2026), however, considering the fact that appellant-Chandulal (Husband of Decease) is reported to be in jail since 03.01.2013 i.e. for last 13 years and the appellant-Mantora Bai (in CRA No.632 of 2016) being mother in law of the deceased, is on bail, with the consent of the parties, both the matters are heard finally. 3. Both the appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No.109/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Appellant Conviction U/s Sentence Chandulal (CRA No.2005 of 2026) 302 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 10 days. 4 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran, Adhiniyam, 2005 RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 10 days. 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran, Adhiniyam, 2005. RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 10 days. Mantora Bai (CRA No.632 of 2016) 4 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran, Adhiniyam, 2005. RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 10 days. 5 of Chhattisgarh RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/-, in 3 Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran, Adhiniyam, 2005. default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 10 days. 4. Case of prosecution is that, on 13.08.2012 the Police Information Ex.P/22 was given by the Doctor from Raipur Hospital and Research Centre, Raipur informing the police that the deceased Smt. Meena Thakur expired on 13.08.2012 who was admitted in the hospital due to burn injury. The police recorded Merg Intimation Ex.P/23 and started investigation. Inquest of the dead body of deceased Ex.P/4 was prepared by the police of Police Station Maudahapara, Raipur in presence of witnesses and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Govt. Medical College Hospital, Raipur, where PW-16 Dr. S.K. Bagh conducted the postmortem of the dead body and gave his report Ex.P/14. While conducting postmortem, the doctor noticed burn injuries on both the breasts up to umbilical part of abdomen, both upper limbs up to middle 1/3rd part of both side forearm, both hands lateral aspect, while on her back it extends from Neck to lower 1/3rd part of back except few places of buttock, and opined that burn present on her body was antemortem in nature. Burn originated from flame (dry burnt) and is sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature and death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of antemortem burn injury and their complications. A written complaint Ex.P/5 was also lodged by the father of the deceased to Police Station Patan, District Durg, alleging that his daughter have been murdered by the accused persons by taunting her as Tonahi and she was set on fire on 25.07.2012 and since then she was 4 admitted in the hospital and ultimately died on 13.08.2012. FIR Ex.P/16 was lodged against the appellants and two other accused persons Baisakhin Bai and Amrekia Bai for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302,34 IPC and Section 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 (in short, the Act, 2005). Spot map Ex.P/1 was prepared by the Patwari and P/6 & P/15 was prepared by the Police. Spot verification map Ex.P/2 was also prepared by the Police in presence of witnesses. 5. The 161 CrPC statement of victim, which has also been marked as Ex.P/6, has been recorded on 01.08.2012 in presence of witnesses Tribhuvan Das, PW-5 and Harishankar, PW-14. The medical treatment papers from Raipur Hospital and Research Centre Raipur has been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. The Statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded. The accused persons have been arrested on 03.01.2013 and 18.02.2013 respectively. 6. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and two other accused persons namely Baisakhin Bai and Amrika Bai for the offence under Sections 302,34, 498-A and 201 IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Patan. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Durg from where it has been transferred to the trial Court for its trial. 7. The trial Court has framed charge against the appellants Chandulal for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005. Charge against the appellant Mantora Bai has 5 been framed under Sections 498-A, 302/34 IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005, whereas, the charge against the accused Baisakhin Bai have been framed under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005. Charge against the accused Amrika Bai has been framed under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 8. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 25 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellants have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. One defence witness Umapati Jha, DW-1 have been examined by the accused persons in their defence. 9. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons Baisakhin Bai and Amrika Bai from all the offences whereas, convicted the present appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening para of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict them in the offence in question. The case of the prosecution is based on 161 CrPC statement of the deceased which is said to have been recorded on 01.08.2012 by the Investigating Officer. There is no dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate in presence of any doctor and in the 161 6 CrPC statement of the deceased, there is no certification of any doctor that she was able to give her statement. The said 161 CrPC statement, Ex.P/6 bears with signature of witnesses which is subsequently obtained in it whereas in the document Ex.D/4 which is the attested true copy issued by the SHO, Patan, does not bear with the signature of witnesses which creates doubt on recording 161 CrPC statement. There is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants that they caused injury to the deceased. In the alleged 161 CrPC statement of the deceased Ex.P/6, she has stated that she herself poured kerosene oil upon her on the anger state of mind due to dispute with the appellants. The appellant Chandulal extinguished the fire and took her to hospital which also shows her bonafide and gives presumption that he has not committed any offence, but it is the deceased herself who committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil and igniting the matchstick and it only to settle the grudge of her parents, the appellants have implicated in the offence of murder with the connivance of the police personnel. There is no sufficient evidence that the deceased was being harassed on the point of Tonahi and no motive has been proved. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellants be acquittal from all the charges. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the appellants and would submit that the the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts, but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are sufficient and reliable to convict the appellants. The 7 deceased was harassed by alleging that she is practicing Tonahi and on the date of incident itself there was dispute between them. Though, on the anger state of her mind due to quarrel between the deceased and accused persons she poured kerosene oil on herself, however, it is the appellant Chandulal who ignited the matchstick and set her on fire. From 161 CrPC statement of the deceased it is clearly proved that she was subjected to cruelty by taunting her as Tonahi and set ablaze by the appellants. With respect to discrepancies in the signature of the witnesses over the said document is concerned, he would submit that the prosecution has proved the document Ex.P/6 duly signed by the witnesses and the said witnesses have admitted their signature over the said document Ex.P/6, whereas, the document filed by the defence Ex.D/4 is a copy issued by the SHO, Patan. The contents of said statement are the same, but only the signature has been disputed by the defence, therefore, such defence of the accused persons does not have much significance in view of substance of the statement made by the deceased. The appellant Chandulal is the Husband of deceased. The incident occurred inside the house and then the appellant Chandulal has to explain the fact within his special knowledge and circumstances under which the deceased received burn injuries. The consideration of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and has rightly convicted the accused persons which does not require any interference. 12. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial court. 8 13. The first and foremost question arises for consideration is about the homicidal death of the deceased. The death of deceased was due to complications arising out of burn injuries on the body of the deceased. On the date of incident when the deceased was being taken to Hospital she was found to be 51 percent second degree deep burn to third degree deep burn. Initially she was admitted at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital Raipur from 25.07.2012 to 01.08.2012 with the history of 40 percent claimed burn. Thereafter, the deceased was taken by the appellant by Lama and she was shifted to Raipur Hospital and Research Centre on 01.08.2012 where she was admitted up to 13.08.2012 and ultimately succumbed to burn injuries. From the documents Ex.P/15 which are medical treatment papers of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital Raipur and Raipur Hospital and Research Centre, it clearly reveals that the deceased was continuously admitted in the hospital from 25.07.2012 to 13.08.2012 and ultimately died. PW-16, Dr.S.K. Bagh who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased have stated in his evidence that he conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased on 13.08.2012 and found burn injuries on both the breasts up to umbilical part of abdomen, both upper limbs up to middle 1/3rd part of both side forearm, both hands lateral aspect, while on her back it extends from Neck to lower 1/3rd part of back except few places of buttock, and opined that burn present on her body was antemortem in nature. Burn originated from flame (dry burnt) and is sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature 9 and opined that death was due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of antemortem burn injury and their complications. In cross examination he admits that they consider Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence as authentic book for reference and he also gave his report on the basis of principles laid down in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence. Nothing in his cross examination which discredit his evidence that death of deceased was not due to burn injury, but otherwise. From these evidence, the prosecution has duly proved that death of the deceased was due to antemortem injuries i.e. burn injuries. 14. So far as the involvement of the appellant No.1 in offence in question is concerned, the case of prosecution is based on 161 CrPC statement of the deceased Ex.P/6 recorded on 01.08.2012 by the Investigating Officer in presence of witnesses. The said 161 CrPC statement of the deceased has been considered by the trial court as her dying declaration. It is necessary to reproduce 161 CrPC statement of the deceased Ex.P/6 which reads as under: **eS mijksDr irs ij jgrh gwW fdlkuh dk dk;Z djrh gwWA esjh 'kknh 9 o"kZ rdjhcu panwyky ds lkFk gqvk FkkA xzke vjlukjk ess gqbZ gSA 'kknh ds nks&rhu lky ckn esjs ifr panqyky ,oa esjh lkl euVksjk ckbZ rFkk cSlk[khu ckbZ cSxhu] ekeh lkl vejhd ckbZ eq>ss ges’kk rqe Vksugh gks dgrs Fks rFkk tc ls 'kknh gqbZ Fkh rc ls esjs lkl ,oa ifr yksx ges’kk ngst esas dqN ugh fn;s gks dgdj rqe viuh ekW&cki ls iSlk ykvks dgdj tc Hkh eS ek;ds tkrh Fkh rks iSlk ykus ds fy, dgrs Fks ysfdu mDr ckr dks viuh ek&cki dks ugh crkrh FkhA esjs nknk tks fatank Fks rks mls nks&rhu ckj crkbZ FkhA nknk Tkh eq>s le>k 10 nsrs FksA esjs ifr eq>s ges’kk tk rqe feV~Vh rsy Mkydj ej tk dgdj eq>s ekufld :Ik ls izrkfMr djrs FksA rFkk esjs ifr ges’kk vkRegR;k djus ds fy, mdlkrk FkkA bl o"kZ gksyh R;kSgkj ess esjs ifr ,oa lkl esjs lkFk ekjihV Hkh fd,A chrs tsBkSuh R;kSgkj esas bu nksuks us ekjihV Hkh fd,A Rkax vkdj Fkkuk ikVu ess budh f’kdk;r dh FkhA fnukad 25-07-2012 fnu cq/kokj ds lqcg 7-30 dks ifr ,oa lkl ls fookn gqvk mlh mijkar eSa xqLls esa vius mij feV~Vh dk rsy fNM+d fy;k FkkA mlh chp esjs ifr us ekfpl ekj fn;k ftlls eS ty xbZA vkl&ikl ds yksxksa ds Mj ls esjs ifr ikuh ls vkx dks cq>k;s vkSj eq>s esdkgkjk gkfLiVy es HkrhZ djk;kA** 15. The said statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, PW- 25, Khoman Singh Bhandari. He has stated in his evidence that on 01.08.2012 he recorded the statement of deceased at Raipur Hospital and Research Centre in presence of witnesses which is Ex.P/6. He also took the signature of deceased on the said statement. In his cross examination he shown is ignorance about the document Ex.D/4. He voluntarily states that document Ex.D/6 has been inscribed by himself on his own handwriting. At the time of recording the statement Ex.P/6, he was the Probationary Sub Inspector at Police Station and when the police received information from Raipur Hospital and Research Centre, the Head Constable of Police Station Maudahapara asked him for recording the statement. She was in a fit state of mind and physical condition to give her statement. Therefore, he recorded her statement. Though he admits that in the date mentioned in the said statement Ex.P/6 there is slight variance in the ink of the date mentioned in it, however, from perusal of entire documents we find no much significance in variation of the 11 ink of the dates. He further stated in his cross examination that before writing her statement Ex.P/6, he asked her as to whether she could be able to sign the document, to which she replied ‘Yes’, and thereafter he obtained her signature in the said document. From the evidence of this witness, he remain unshaken that he recorded the statement of the deceased on 01.08.2012 at Raipur Hospital and Research Centre. 16. PW-5, Tribhuvan Das, is the witness to the said statement whose signature has been found in the document Ex.P/6. He stated in his evidence that when he came to know about the incident, he visited Hospital along with the father of the deceased on the next morning. At that time, she was not in a position to speak. After 3-4 days of the incident when she regain her conscious, she informed her mother that she tried to set herself ablaze on fire, but matchstick could not be ignited and then the appellant Chandulal set her on fire and she shouted, her neighbour came and extinguished the fire by pouring water. He admits his signature over the document Ex.P/6 and stated that statement of deceased was recorded in his presence. 17. In cross examination he stated that he could not say as to what was the percentage of burn injuries which the deceased received. Though he admits that on what date her statement was recorded, how many days she remain in hospital and time gap between recording of her statement and her death, he could not say, however, he remain firm in saying that the statement of the deceased was recorded by the police in Hospital and he signed the said document. At the time when she signed the document Ex.P/6, the deceased 12 was alive. In his detailed cross examination, he remain firm and proved the document Ex.P/6. 18. PW-14, Harishankar, is another witness in whose presence the statement of deceased Ex.P/6 was recorded. Though he supported the prosecution case that the accused persons have set the deceased on fire by pouring kerosene oil, however, he has not stated anything about the document Ex.P/6. He supported the contents of document Ex.P/6 that after having quarrel with the appellant Chandulal, she became enraged and poured kerosene oil on herself and tried to ignite the matchstick but it could not ignited and then the appellant Chandulal ignited and set her on fire. This part of his statement is duly corroborated with the statement made by the deceased in Ex.P/6. 19. The document Ex.P/6 which is the statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC is being treated as dying declaration by the trial court. In case of Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav Vs. State of UP & Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2639, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, a statement made by a deceased person, as to the cause of his/her death or to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his/her death, to a Police Officer and recorded under Section 161 CrPC, shall be relevant and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, notwithstanding the express bar provided in Section 162 CrPC. Such a statement, upon the death of the declarant, assumes the character of a dying declaration. In para 14 of the said judgment, it has been held as under: 13 “14. We find these contentions bereft of any merit. We say so because it is a well-established position of law that a statement made by a deceased person, as to the cause of his death or to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, to a Police Officer and recorded under Section 161 CrPC, shall be relevant and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, notwithstanding the express bar provided in Section 162 CrPC. Such a statement, upon the death of the declarant, assumes the character of a dying declaration. It is also equally settled that a dying declaration need not necessarily be recorded in the presence of a Magistrate, and that the lack of a doctor's certification as to the fitness of the declarant’s state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying declaration unacceptable. This position has been recently reiterated by this Court in Dharmendra Kumar v. State of M.P., wherein it was held: “65. Section 161 CrPC empowers the police to examine orally any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case under investigation. The police may reduce such statement into writing also. Section 162(1)CrPC, nonetheless, mandates that no statement made by any person to a police officer, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it, nor shall such statement be used in evidence except to contradict a witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. However, sub- section (2) of Section 162CrPC carves out an exception to sub- section (1) as it explicitly provides that nothing in Section 162 shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the ambit of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. In other words, a statement made by a person who is dead, as to the cause of his death or to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, to a police officer and which has been recorded under Section 161CrPC, shall be relevant and admissible, notwithstanding the express bar against use of such statement in evidence contained therein. In such eventuality, the statement recorded under Section 161CrPC assumes the character of a dying declaration. Since extraordinary credence has been given to such dying declaration, the court ought to be extremely careful and cautious in placing reliance thereupon…….. 66. As regards the assessment of mental fitness of the person making a dying declaration, it is indubitably the responsibility of the court to ensure that the declarant was in a sound state of mind. This is because there are no rigid procedures mandated for recording a dying declaration. If an eyewitness asserts that the deceased was conscious and capable of making the declaration, the medical opinion cannot override such affirmation, nor can the dying declaration be disregarded solely for want of a doctor's fitness certification. The requirement for a dying declaration to be recorded in the presence of a doctor, following certification of the declarant's mental fitness, is merely a matter of prudence. [Koli Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 432]” [See also: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra16; Bhagwan v. State of U.P.17; Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)18; Pradeep Bisoi 14 v. State of (2002) 6 SCC 710 (2013) 12 SCC 137 (2019) 8 SCC 779 Odisha19; and Manjunath v. State of Karnataka20]” 20. Apart from the statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC Ex.P/6 which has been treated as dying declaration, there are other evidence also. PW-3, Budharu Ram, father of the deceased has made oral dying declaration that her daughter was being harassed by the accused persons and her mother in law provided matchstick to her husband and then her husband ignited and set her on fire. He remain firm in cross examination that his daughter has made statement before him and disclosed about the incident. 21. PW-4, Smt. Dulorin Bai, is the mother of deceased. She too have stated that her daughter was being harassed by her husband and her in laws on the allegation of Tonahi and she was set on fire by the appellants. She also disclosed that her daughter was subjected to assault by the accused persons. She too remain firm in her cross examination that her daughter was burnt by the appellants. 22. PW-6, Laxmi Bai, have stated in her evidence that when she came to know about the incident, she met her in the Hospital and she asked about the incident, she disclosed that she herself poured kerosene upon her, but could not ignite the matchstick and then her husband set her on fire. In her cross examination she remain firm that when she asked about the incident, the deceased disclosed that her husband ignited the matchstick and set her ablaze. She also disclosed that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused persons which was disclosed by her whenever she met her. 15 23. PW-7, Radhabai, in whose house the deceased was working, have stated in her evidence that the deceased was being harassed by her in laws which was narrated to her by the deceased whenever she came to her work. When she went to hospital to meet her, she disclosed that her husband set her on fire. 24. PW-8, Smt. Sakun Bai, is the neighbor of the deceased. She stated in her evidence that when the deceased came to village, there was quarrel between the deceased and her in laws. At about 9 AM she was crying and subsequently she came to know that her husband set her on fire. When she asked the deceased, she disclosed that her husband ablazed her. Thereafter, she declared hostile and then she supported the allegation that the husband of the deceased harassed her and subjected to cruelty. In her detailed cross examination the substantial evidence remain unshaken that there was frequent quarrel between the deceased and her husband and in laws and her husband set her on fire. 25. PW-9, Rahi Bai is also a witness to the quarrel between deceased and accused Amrika Bai. She stated that at about 4-5 PM near borewell, Amrika Bai assaulted the deceased by holding her hair. When she met with deceased in the Hospital, she disclosed the incident that her mother in law and husband set her on fire. 26. PW-13, Madhav is also a witness to the oral dying declaration that when he went to hospital to see the deceased, she disclosed that she was hungry for about two days and when she came back from her work, she had a quarrel with appellant Chandulal and then he set her ablazed. The deceased also disclosed that she was being 16 harassed on the allegation of Tonahi. In cross examination, nothing substantial is there to disbelieve his evidence. 27. PW-14, Harishankar, is also the witness to the same effect as the other witnesses have stated and she too have firmly stated about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased. 28. PW-15, Ku. Prabha, is the daughter of the deceased as well as appellant-Chandulal. She stated in her evidence that at the time of incident she was in her school and her neighbor informed about the incident, however, when the court put a question as to whether at the time when she was going to her school, her father and grandmother were quarreling with her mother, she answered in affirmative. The defence has not cross examined the witness on this point. Thus, the quarrel with the deceased by the appellant has been proved by this witness alone which corroborates the further allegation of harassment, quarrel and also set the deceased on fire. 29. All these evidences are duly corroborated the statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC Ex.P/6 which was recorded by PW-25, Khoman Singh Bhandari, the investigating officer and thus, there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that it is the appellant-Chandulal who set the deceased on fire by which she received burn injuries and ultimately she died. 30. With reference to offence under Sections 4&5 of the Act, 2005 is concerned, we again examine the evidence of witnesses. 31. PW-3, Budharu Ram, is the father of deceased who have stated in his evidenced that when he received information that his daughter has received burn injury and admitted in the Hospital, he visited to 17 Raipur Hospital where his daughter informed him that she was being harassed by the accused persons by saying Tonahi and thereafter she became enraged and poured kerosene on herself then her mother in law provided matchstick to her husband and then he ignited it. In cross examination the defence could not be able to abstract that his daughter was not being harassed on the allegation of Tonahi. 32. PW-4, Smt. Dulorin Bai, is the mother of deceased who have stated in her evidence that her daughter was being harassed by her husband and mother in law by alleging Tonahi. She defamed in the vicinity and community that her daughter was practicing Tonahi. Her daughter informed that a day before the date of incident she was beaten by her Aunt in laws and on the next day she returned earlier from her work and at that time she was being scolded by her mother in law and her husband. She became enraged and poured kerosene oil on herself and tried to set herself on fire but the matchstick could not ignited and then her mother in law provided matchstick to her husband and he ignite it. In the cross examination of this witness, she remain firm that her daughter was being harassed by her husband and mother in law with the allegation of Tonahi. 33. PW-13, Madhav Yadav, have stated that deceased disclosed to him that she was being harassed on the allegation of Tonahi by her in laws. 34. The other members of the vicinity also identified her as Tonahi by which she suffered harassment. In cross examination, the defence 18 could not be able to rebut the allegation that deceased was being harassed by the accused persons on the allegation of Tonahi. 35. The evidence reflects that the before the incident, the deceased was being harassed by her husband and in laws on the allegation of Tonahi which has been proved by her parents and sister. The evidence with respect to allegation of Tonahi are consistent and thereby the trial court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005. Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 reads as under: “4. Punishment for identifying Tonahi.- Whoever identifies any person as Tonahi by any means shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also with fine. 5. Punishment for harassment.- Whoever causes physical or mental harassment or damage to any person identified by him or any person as Tonahi shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and also with line.” 36. When the deceased was found to be dead due to burn injuries which was caused by the appellants by setting her on fire and there is sufficient evidence of the witnesses about previous quarrel with the deceased and also the dying declaration of the deceased recorded in the form of her statement under Section 161 CrPC which has been proved by the prosecution, it is clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by the appellant Chandulal and before that, she was being harassed on the allegation of Tonahi by the appellant Chandulal and his mother Mantora Bai for which they have rightly been convicted by the trial court and accordingly their conviction for the said offences are hereby affirmed. 19 37. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant Chandulal has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC for which he has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine sentence. For the offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005, both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and one year respectively with fine sentence for each of the offences along with default stipulation. Sections 4&5 of the Act, 2005 does not provide any minimum sentence which may extend to RI for three years and five years respectively. 38. Considering the nature of offence and the age of appellant-Mantora Bai and also the fact that she remained in jail from 03.01.2013 to 13.05.2013 i.e. for more than four months, her sentence for the offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 is to be reduced for the period already undergone by her by maintaining the fine sentence and default stipulation. 39. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Chandulal for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Sections 4&5 of the Act, 2005 are maintained. Further, conviction of the appellant-Mantora Bai for the offence under Sections 4&5 of the Act, 2005 is also maintained, however, her sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by her. The fine sentence and default stipulations for these offences are maintained. The sentences of the appellant- Chandulal are directed to run concurrently. 40. The appellant Chandulal is reported to be in jail since 01.03.2013. He shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the trial court. The appellant Mantora Bai is reported to be undergone the jail sentence 20 from 03.01.2013 to 13.05.2013. As she has already served the entire sentence as awarded by this court and she is presently on bail, she need not require to surrender. Her bail bond shall remain continue for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 41. Resultantly, CRA No.2005 of 2026 filed by the appellant-Chandulal is dismissed, however, CRA No.632 of 2016 filed by the appellant- Mantora Bai is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 42. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant-Chandulal is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 43. The Trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court, concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder