Durg (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. - Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg
Case Details
ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.18 10:41:17 +0530 2025:CGHC:2278 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.A. No. 144 of 2004 Narendra Kumar, S/o Shri Samaroo Nishad, aged about 23 Years, R/o. Village - Pangari, Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District : Durg (C.G.) ------ Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. - Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Avinash Chand Sau, Advocate. Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgement on Board 07/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. This appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed by the appellant assailing the legality, correctness and Judicial properity of the judgment date 07/02/2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 18/2003. 3. By the impugned judgment the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indiane Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for One year and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 03 months was imposed on the appellant. 4. Along with the appellant, accused persons - Narendra Kumar, Pancbati Bai, Samaroo and Santosh Kumar were put to trial. -2- 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, Tankeshwari Bai (PW/3) was married with the appellant prior to two years back to the date of incident i.e. 05/09/2002. After the marriage she lived happily in her matrimonial house for about one and a half month, thereafter she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by her husband, Mother in Law, Father-in-Law and brother in law. She made the complaint to her parents upon which the father of the complainant advise to mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. Even then no change in the behavior of them. On 05/09/2002, appellant quarreled with the complainant Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) on account of her not been sent to her maternal home on occasion of Teja Festival. When this was being informed by her to her father by a phone call from the shop of Satrughan (PW-2), the appellant - Narendra came there and dragged her from her hair, beating and was being brought to his home. She was fainted on the way near the house of Laxmi Bai (PW-1), thereafter she was given water by Laxmi Bai (PW-1) and along with neighbor Kamarin Bai (PW-4) Tankeshwari Bai was sent to the house of the appellant. 6. It is also case of the prosecution that when complainant – Tankeshwari Bai (PW- 3) was lying unconscious, the appellant and the other accused person poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire, and they themselves admitted her in District Hospital – Durg. On the information received from the hospital, dying declaration of the complainant – Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) was recorded by S.R. Mandavi (PW-11) vide Ex.P/14. FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 498 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. vide Ex.P/8. Investigation was set on motion. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/9. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Appellant and other accused persons were arrested for the above mentioned offences vide Ex.P/10, Ex.P/11, Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13. 7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. who -3- in turn committed the matter to the sessions court. The appellant along-with other co-accused were charged for an offence punishable under sections 498A, 307 alternatively section 307 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant and other co- accused persons examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. 9. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial Court acquitted the other co-accused from all the charges and the appellant for charge under section 307 and 307/34 of the IPC. The other co-accused persons were also acquitted from charge under section 498A of IPC. However convicted the appellant for an offence under section 498A of the IPC. and imposed the sentenced stated in the third paragraph of this judgment. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradiction and omission in the statement of the witnesses. The appellant and other co-accused were acquitted for an offence under section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC. Therefore, there was no prudent evidence to convict the appellant for an offence under section 498A of IPC. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was aged about 23 years at the time of commission of offence and he was facing the trial since year 2003. He was granted bail by the learned trial court and after his conviction his sentence was suspended by this court and he has never misused the liberty and regularly appeared before the trial court. During this period he must have reformed in the society and his freedom is not detrimental to the society at large. Apart from this, he has already served 02 months and 13 days out of the maximum sentence of one year as awarded by the trial court and the fine amount has already been paid. The sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. -4- 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the evidence on record and the finding recorded by the trial court cannot be found fault with. The witnesses have categorically deposed that Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and she was given harassment. Therefore finding of conviction recorded by learned trial court does not require any interfence. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 13. The learned trial court has acquitted the appellant and other co-accused for an offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC. Laxmi Bai (PW-1) which according to the prosecution is a witness to the fact that Tankeshwari Bai (complainant) was dragged by her hair by her husband and she fainted on the way did not support the case of the prosecution, rather her statement clearly spells that the complainant came to her house and demanded water and went away to her home, this witness was declare hostile and was subject to lengthy cross-examination by the prosecution, however, she did not support the case of prosecution and remain firmed that the complainant came and demanded water. The other witness in this context is Satrughan Lal Deshlahre (PW-2) also stated that he has a general store in the village and has a phone installed there. Appellant and his wife (complainant) came to his shop for making a call and complainant was making a call to Rajhara, however, it could not be connected and therefore both of them went away. This witness also categorically denied to the fact that the complainant Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) was dragged by hair by the appellant rather denied the statement given to the Police under section 161 of Cr.P.C. 14. Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) in her examination-in-chief deposed that on 05/09/2002, she was in her matrimonial home at Village - Pangari along-with her in-laws and -5- they were quarreling with her on account of dowry and they always used to quarrel in the name of dowry. She was in trouble by the in-laws on account of dowry and she went to the shop of Satrughan to call her father than her husband brought her from the shop beating her. Thereafter, the accused persons surrounded and set her on fire by pouring kerosene. On being shouted, people came there and took her to District Hospital – Durg where she was treated and Tahsildaar recorded her statement. She was subjected to lengthy cross examination. The trial court came to categorically finding that no case is made out under section 307 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the appellant and othe co- accused and also came to conclusion that other accused persons cannot be found guilty under section 498A of the IPC. The allegations which were levelled by the complainant (PW-3) was not against a particular person, it is only a general allegation made that the in-laws used to quarrel with her on account of demand of dowry. No specific allegation was made in her examination-in-chief by the complainant - Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) as to how and when, she was subjected to harassment and torture on account of demand of dowry. 15. Smt. Kamarin Bai (PW-4) is a witness who has stated that when she went to purchase the articles from the shop of Sadhuram, Tankeshwari Bai (PW-3) was sitting with sad mood saying that nobody came to take her on Teja occasion and therefore she is sad, this witness was declared hostile and did not say anything. Mother of complainant Munni Bai (PW-5) simply stated that complainant – Tankeshwari Bai is her daughter, she was married in the year 2000 and whenever her daughter visited she used to tell her that the appellant used to quarrel on demand of dowry. She has further stated that during the marriage no demand of dowry was made. Madhavram (PW-6) is the father of the complainant. He has been declared hostile and he has not disclosed anything with regard to demand of dowry made with the complainant by the appellant and other co-accused. Dr. S. Fating (PW-7) has examined the complainant and PW-9 and PW-10 are witnesses to certain investigation carried out. PW-11 is the -6- Nayab Tahsildaar recorded the dying declaration. As the trial court has acquitted the appellant and other co-accused for an offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.,assessment of these witnesses is not necessary. 16. From availability of the evidence, it is quite vivid that the complainant suffered some injuries and prosecution was failed to prove that she was set on fire by the appellant and other co-accused. The appellant was convicted under section 498A of IPC, however only omnibus allegation was leveled and that too no specific overtact has been leveled against the appellant or any of the other co-accused. With the similar allegations, the other accused have been acquitted, therefore in the opinion the court, the appellant cannot be held guilty for an offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC. The conviction of the appellant is set a side and he is acquitted from all the charges. Appeal thus allowed. 17. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 18. The record be sent back to the trial Court along with a copy of this order for compliance and information. -Sd/-/-- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish