Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.08 18:32:49 +0530 2025:CGHC:21255-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 106 of 2018 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The In-charge, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.). versus ... Appellant • Durgesh Bharti S/o Ray Bharti, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Kokdi, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Vikas Vajpai and Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocates appears on behalf of Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 08/05/2025 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 02/08/2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.85/2015, whereby, the respondent- Durgesh Bharti has been acquitted from the offence punishable 2 under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and in alternatively for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that the marriage of the deceased- Parvati Bharti was solemnized with respondent-Durgesh Bharti on 02/02/2014 at village Jodhra, District Bilaspur. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the solemnization of the marriage of the deceased, she was harassed and maltreated by respondent- husband on account of illegal demand of motorcycle, owing to which, she committed suicide by burning herself on 15/06/2015 at 10:00 PM and died on 17/06/2015 at 11:15 AM. On account of the death of the deceased, a merg intimation (Ex.P-15) was lodged by Ward-boy of CIMS, Hospital before Police Station City Kotwali, out post CIMS, Bilaspur on 17/06/2015 and thereafter, the inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-10 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Smt. S. Mahajan, who vide her report (Ex.P-12) opined the cause of death to be extensive burn injuries followed by shock and, after completion of the due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC in connection with Crime No.292/2015 and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, who in turn, has framed the charges against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and in alternatively under Section 302 of IPC and, the charges so framed were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the dying declaration (Ex.D-2) of the deceased, held that the respondent was not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence of the relatives of the deceased have not been taken into consideration in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and in alternatively under Section 4 302 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the solemnization of marriage of the deceased-Parvati Bharti on 02/02/2014, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband on account of the demand of motorcycle, owing to which, she committed suicide by burning herself while pouring kerosene oil on 15/06/2015 at 10:00 PM. In order to establish the alleged allegations, mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and a bare perusal of her statement would show that her daughter was maltreated and harassed on account of demand of motorcycle, ornaments, fridge and cooler and stated further that when she was admitted into the CIMS Hospital, it was informed by her that, her husband has burnt her after assaulting on account of the demand of dowry. However, when her statement (Ex.D-1) was recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is stated that because of demand of motorcycle, she was assaulted by her son-in-law. Her statement, thus, appears to be exaggerated from her said statement (Ex.D-1). 9) Anusuiya Goswami (PW-3) was the sister of deceased’s mother, but, she has not stated that the deceased has committed suicide because of the alleged demand of motorcycle. Although, it was stated by her in her statement (Ex.P-7) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that deceased-Parvati Bharti has burnt herself because of the harassment given by her husband, but has denied specifically the alleged version when she was examined before the Court. 10) Father of the deceased, namely, Leela Gir Goswami was examined as PW-4 and according to his statement, it appears that because of 5 demand of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-, his deceased daughter was harassed and maltreated and was informed by his said daughter on phone that respondent has burnt her and it was stated further by him at para 10 of his testimony that when his daughter was burnt, the respondent has tried to extinguish the fire, owing to which, his hands were burnt. 11) Sushila Goswami (PW-5) was also the sister of deceased’s mother and according to her, she was informed by deceased-Parvati Bharti on phone that she was being harassed and maltreated by the respondent on account of demand of motorcycle and ornaments. 12) From perusal of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses, it, thus, appears that there are material discrepancies and omissions with regard to the alleged demand of dowry, as alleged by the prosecution. 13) That apart, when the deceased was being treated in the hospital, her dying declaration (Ex.D-2) was recorded before the Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar, Bilaspur and a bare perusal of her said statement, would show that she was burnt while cooking and when she shouted, her husband has tried to extinguish the fire in order to save her and, it appears further that when a question was put to her that whether anyone has burnt her, it was replied that no one has burnt her, nor has stated that she was maltreated or harassed by her in-laws. Pertinently to be noted here that the alleged dying declaration (Ex.D-2) was the part of the case diary, but when the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the same was deliberately removed from it. The prosecution 6 has, thus, tried to suppress the said material fact, for the reasons best known to it. 14) Be that as it may, an application was made by the respondent during trial under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for the production of the alleged dying declaration on record and after considering the said application, the trial Court vide its order dated 09/05/2017, while allowing the said application has directed for the production of the said document on record. 15) In view of the such circumstances, it appears that the prosecution has not only failed to establish the fact that because of the alleged demand of motorcycle, the deceased was burnt by her husband, but has tried to suppress the alleged dying declaration (Ex.D-2) in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. 16) In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant