State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, District Koriya (C.G.) v. 1 - Vinod Kumar Patel, S/o. Ramnihor Patel, Aged About 25 Years. 2- Diwakar
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.24 15:00:17 +0530 2025:CGHC:48226-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 120 of 2011 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, District Koriya (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Patel, S/o. Ramnihor Patel, Aged About 25 Years. 2- Diwakar Patel, S/o. Ramnihor Patel, Aged About 32 Years. 3- Smt. Sanjay Patel, W/o. Diwakar Patel, Aged Abou 27 Years. All R/o. Village Rajigawan, P.S. Laur, Distt. Rewa (M.P.) Presently, R/o. Pandawpara, P.S. Patna, Distt. Koriya (C.G.). --- Respondents For Appellant For Respondents : : Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate & CRA No. 517 of 2010 Vinod Kumar Patel, S/o. Ram Nihor Patel, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village Rajigawan, P.S. Laur, Distt. Rewa (M.P.). Presently, R/o. Pandavpara, P.S. Patna, Distt. Korea (C.G.). ---Appellant 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through, P.S. Patna, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board (19.09.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals which have arisen from Sessions Trial No. 8/2010, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The Sessions Judge, Koriya, Baikunthpur, by its impugned judgment dated 24.07.2010 acquitted Diwakar Patel (A-2) & Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3) of the charges under Sections 304-B & 201 of I.P.C. and convicted Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) has preferred Criminal Appeal 3 No.517/2010 against the impugned judgment of conviction whereas State has preferred Acquittal Appeal No.120/2011 against acquittal of Diwakar Patel (A-2) & Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3). 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, the marriage of Sunita Patel (now deceased) was solemnized with Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) on 16.06.2004 and it is further case of the prosecution that deceased committed suicide on 28/29.09.2009 and thereafter, on 02.10.2009, Lalbahadur Patel (PW-1), father of the deceased, reported the matter to the police and lodged the FIR on 26.09.2009 that Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) has demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from his daughter failing which, he threatened to kill her. Thereafter, she committed suicide in the intervening night of 28/29.06.2009 and her dead body was cremated at Rajgawan, District Koriya, pursuant to which, FIR was registered, nazari naksha was prepared and statements were recorded and thereafter, after due investigation, the accused (A-1 to A-3) were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 304-B & 201 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in 4 which, the accused/appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents along-with Article-A and the appellants-accused in support of their defence have not examined any witness but have exhibited documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. 5. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral & documentary evidence on record, while acquitting Diwakar Patel (A-2) & Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3) of the charges under Sections 304-B & 201 of I.P.C. and Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) of the charge under Section 201 of I.P.C., convicted Vinod Kumar Patel (A- 1) for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment, against which the present appeals have been preferred. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the accused/ appellant, would submit that dead body of the deceased was not subjected to post-mortem, therefore, it could not be established that the death of deceased Sunita Patel was other than normal circumstance and it has also not been established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or 5 harassment by Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) for demand of dowry. As such, most of the ingredients except the death within seven years of marriage are not been established, therefore, appellant Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) is entitled for acquittal and the appeal of the appellant (A-1) deserves to be allowed. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, further submits that appellant Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) had already undergone 7 years rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the learned trial Court and he has been released from jail after completing the jail sentence and the statement to this effect is placed on record. In respect of acquittal appeal, it has been submitted that there is no evidence against Diwakar Patel (A-2) & Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3), therefore, they have rightly been acquitted by the learned trial Court and, as such, the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel would submit that Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) along-with two other accused persons have committed the aforesaid offence and hurriedly cremated the dead body of deceased, therefore, post- mortem could not be conducted and the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. has been duly established. As 6 such, the acquittal appeal be allowed while convicting the accused persons. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Acquittal Appeal No.120 of 2011 9. Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) is husband of the deceased, Diwakar Patel (A-2) is brother of Vinod Kumar Pate (A-1) and Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3) is wife of Diwakar Patel (A-2). I.O.- K.P. Chouhan (PW-5) has clearly stated that house of Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) & Diwakar Patel (A-2) both are separate, though the house is one but boundary wall is separate and their business and their kitchen are also separate. Similar statement has been made by Lalbahadur Patel (PW-1) that they used to work separately, however, he has stated he never visited Pandopara where the accused persons were residing. 10. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral & documentary evidence on record and keeping in view the FIR lodged by Lalbahadur (PW-1) vide Ex.P-1, in which he had made a report that it is informed by her daughter that her husband 7 Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, proceeded to acquit Diwakar Patel (A-2) and his wife Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3) of the charges under Sections 304-B & 201 of I.P.C. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 1 has held that, no doubt an FIR is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it and omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. 12. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that Lalbahadur (PW-1) has not mentioned the name of Diwakar Patel (A-2) and Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3) that they have demanded money while lodging the FIR. Therefore, relying upon the statement of Lalbahadur (PW-1) & I.O. (PW-5), the trial Court is absolutely justified in acquitting Diwakar Patel (A-2) & Smt. Sanjay Patel (A-3) of the charges under Sections 304-B & 201 of I.P.C., which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, we do not find any good 1 AIR 1975 SC 1026 8 ground to interfere with the acquittal appeal and accordingly, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2010 13. Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1), husband of the deceased, has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. on the basis of statement of father of the deceased Lalbahadur (PW-1), mother of the deceased Kusumkali (PW-2) & Vivekanand Shukla (PW-3). 14. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Section 304B of I.P.C. which relates to dowry death:- “304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall 9 not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” The above provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1986 and came into force with effect from 19-11-1986. 15. In order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C., the following essentials must be satisfied- The death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. Such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. Soon before the death of deceased, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her Husband or any relative of her Husband. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. Thus, if the aforesaid ingredients are established by the prosecution by leading appropriate reliable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. 16. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about presumption as to dowry death, which reads as under:- 10 "113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." The aforesaid provision shows that if the woman has been subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC, the court may presume that such person has caused dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:- 2. Definition of "dowry". In this Act," dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 17. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B of I.P.C., one of the main ingredients of the offence, which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was 11 subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. 18. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid provisions (Section 304-B of I.P.C. & Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act), it is quite vivid that as per the statement of Lalbahadur (PW-1), Kusumkali (PW-2) & Vivekanand (PW-3), it has clearly been established that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) was solemnized on 16.06.2004 and she died on 29.09.2009. As such, it is established that the death has occurred within seven years of marriage. Now, it has to be seen as to whether death of Sunita Patel (deceased) was caused otherwise than normal circumstances. Since the dead body of deceased could not be subjected to post- mortem, therefore, it could not be ascertained as to whether the death of the deceased was in normal circumstance or in abnormal circumstance, as it could have been ascertained only by way of post-mortem. The Investigating Officer (PW-5) did not say anything that the death of deceased was homicidal or suicidal and no other evidence is available at all. 12 However, there is evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as per the statement of father of deceased Lalbahadur (PW-1) and mother of deceased Kusumkali (PW- 2). In that view of the matter, the conviction of Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) is set aside for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., however, instead thereof, he is convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment, which the appellant (A-1) had already undergone and released from jail after completing the jail sentence. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal appeal filed by the State is dismissed and criminal appeal filed by Vinod Kumar Patel (A-1) is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Ashok