08.09.2025 1. Anujram S/o Shri Laxman, aged about 50 years, R/o Village- Dheevra, P.S v. • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Jaijepur, District- Janjgir-Champa
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2025:CGHC:45592 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1079 of 2008 Judgement reserved on : 22.07.2025 Judgement delivered on : 08.09.2025 1. Anujram S/o Shri Laxman, aged about 50 years, R/o Village- Dheevra, P.S.- Jaijepur, Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2. Indira Bai, W/o Shri Anujram, aged about 45 years, R/o Village- Dheevra, P.S.- Jaijepur, Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) --- Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Jaijepur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---Respondent/State For Appellants : Mr. H. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, 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 06.12.2008 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 53/2008, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 498 -(A)/ 34 of IPC R.I. for 03 year each, with fine amount of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional 2 R.I. for 01 month each. U/S 304 -(B)/34 of IPC R.I. for 7 years each with fine amount of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months each. (Both substantive sentences shall run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case that on 30.06.2007 at around 11.30 am at the Outpost- Hasaud, Thana- Jaijaipur, Anujram, Pramod Kashyap, Pawan Kashyap and Ashwani Kashyap had informed that the deceased Chainkumari set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil in the courtyard. On primary investigation, the relatives of the deceased have stated that before the said incident and since the marriage, her father- in-law/appellant No. 1 and mother-in-law/appellant No. 2 subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, as a result, she succumbed to death. Prior to one year of the date of incident i.e., 29.06.2007 marriage was solemnized between the deceased Chainkumari and Pawan Kashyap. Subsequently, the body of the deceased was sent to post- mortem. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of
Legal Reasoning
the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Sections 498 (A) and 304-B of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also 3 recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in inaugural of this judgment. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the facts, evidence and law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution has not examined a single independent witness belonging to the locality where the deceased was residing with her in-laws and who stated that the deceased was subjected to torture and there was demand of dowry from the appellants. Manharan Kashyap, father of the deceased (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution case and prosecution declared him hostile, the conviction is based on only on the statement of the Investigating Officer who is the interested witness for the prosecution. He further submits that during the course of investigation, inquest statements were recorded of uncle and brother of the deceased, wherein they had stated in clear tone that they do not suspect any foul with respect to the incident. Father of the deceased had been to Jammu Kashmir to earn his livelihood, he was under the bad influence of miscreants, as such he framed the appellants in the case in hand by lodging a false complaint against them, in fact the deceased was very much sensitive by nature as admitted by the uncle and brother of the deceased and without any cause and reason has committed suicide. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be 4 acquitted of the aforesaid charges. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand1 and in the matter of Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana.2 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Chainkumari died within 07 years of marriage, solemnized with Pawan Kumar and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants for demand of dowry. So, the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted the accused/appellants. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from the record of learned trial Court that it framed charges under Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused/appellants and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted them under Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. Before learned trial Court, it is an admitted position that deceased Chainkumari is the daughter-in-law of the appellants- Anujram and Indira Bai and she died on 29.06.2007 i.e., within the seven years of her marriage. 10. Manharan Kashyap (PW-1) father of the deceased Chainkumari has stated in his deposition that her daughter’s marriage was solemnized with Pawan Kumar prior to one year of the fateful incident and her daughter told him that the accused persons/appellants subjected her to cruelty by harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of 1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214 5 dowry. He further stated that his son namely Rambharose apprised him through phone that Chainkumari’s health condition was serious and told them to come quickly, then we came from Pathankot to village. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted the suggestion of prosecution that after the marriage, deceased Chainkumari told him that the accused persons/appellants subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with meager dowry. He has also admitted the suggestion of the defence that at the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made by the accused/appellants, moreover, he admitted that his daughter had not disclosed this fact regarding how she was being troubled by her in- laws, however, as she disclosed regarding the troubles which she underwent were normal, as such he made her understood of the things and thereby he headed towards Pathankot for livelihood. Further admitted this fact that since harassment in relation to dowry was normal, he did not lodge a report before the police staion. In para 7 of of his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that the accused never made any demand of dowry before him, as such he never convened any social meeting in this regard. In para 9 of his cross-examination, he admitted at the time of tenth day ritual following a death, his wife and son were present. 11. Radha Bai (PW-2) mother of the deceased has also stated in her deposition that both the accused persons/appellants subjected her daughter to cruelty by harassing and torturing her in connection with meager dowry. Prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, then she admitted the suggestion of prosecution after the marriage, deceased Chainkumari told him that her mother-in-law and father-in- law i.e., the accused persons/appellants subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with meager dowry. She has also admitted 6 the suggestion of prosecution that her son Rambharose gave five thousand rupees to purchase earrings and she added more two thousand rupees for purchasing the earrings and given to her daughter Chainkumari. She admitted this fact in para 3 of her cross-examination that her daughter was very fond of wearing earrings, as such the demand of earrings was made by her daughter, not made by the accused persons/appellants. She admitted this fact that the accused never made any demand of dowry before her or her husband. She has also admitted this fact that her daughter was adamant and her nature was usually irritable. 12. Rambharose Kashyap (PW-5) has stated in his deposition that both the accused persons/appellants subjected her sister to cruelty by harassing and torturing her in connection with meager dowry. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted the suggestion of prosecution that he purchased the gold earrings to give her sister/deceased Chainkumari. Further, he admitted this fact that at the time of preparing inquest memo he was present, however, he did not make any complaint to police regarding the demand of dowry. In para 7 of his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that the goods which were given by us as dowry for his deceased’s/sister’s wedding was out of our own free will and the accused/appellants never made any demand of dowry before him. 13. From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of statements of PW-1 father, PW-2 mother and PW-5 brother of the deceased Chainkumari, it is clear that they have only stated that the deceased told them about trouble by the appellants, which were normal in nature, but they have admitted that accused had never demanded of any dowry from them and also they did not explain that how the accused tortured 7 her and there is no statement to establish this fact that the deceased Chainkumari was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death in connection with demand of dowry. Rambharose- brother of the deceased (PW-5) stated that he bought one set of gold earrings for his sister, but he admitted this fact that her sister demanded that gold earrings, as she was fond of it and the appellants never demanded earrings from him. 14. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Karan Singh (Supra), held in para 17 which reads as under:- 17…...The statement of PW-8 was recorded more than two and half months from the date of the incident. Moreover, he had no personal knowledge whether the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in. Perhaps this is a case of moral conviction. 15. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh (Supra), held in para 11, which reads as under:- “ 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:- 8 “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.’’ 16. In the light of above cited judgements, in the present case also, it is evident that at the time of preparing inquest memo, brother and mother of the deceased were present, but they did not make any outrageous allegations against the accused and did not lodge any complaint regarding the torture by the accused to the deceased Chainkumari. It is quite evident that as per FIR (Ex. P/19) date of incident is 29.06.2007 and the FIR lodged on 13.09.2007, there was near about three months delay. Investigating Officer- S. P. Khakha (PW-7), who recorded the statements of relatives of the deceased Chainkumari after long delay of the FIR, thus, prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants that the deceased Chainkumari was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before the death regarding the demand of dowry. Thus, prosecution has failed to 9 establish the ingredients of said offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, 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. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges 18. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S. 2023), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 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 filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. 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/- AMIT PATEL (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE