Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.13 17:40:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:23321-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 49 of 2017 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surguja, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. Himanshu Das, S/o Punni Das, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Amatikra, Sitapur, Police Station Sitapur, District, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Punni Das, S/o Mahant Das Panika, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Amatikra, Sitapur, Police Station Sitapur, District, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For State/Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 12/06/2025 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 27/08/2016 passed 2 by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.49/2014, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 04/11/2013 at 09:00 A.M., husband of the deceased (Sunita), namely, Himanshu Das, respondent No.1, has poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze, owing to which, she sustained burn injuries and, immediately was taken to Sitapur Hospital and looking to her critical condition, she was referred to District Hospital at Ambikapur from where, she was referred to Holycross Hospital, Ambikapur where during the course of her treatment she passed away on 10/11/2013 at 05:00 P.M. 3. A merg intimation (Ex.P/2) was lodged on 10/11/2013 and after its enquiry, an FIR (Ex.P/11) was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the respondents and after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur in connection with Crime No.09/2014 against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge under the aforesaid provision has been framed against them, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the 3 prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents, while one witness was examined by the respondents in their defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the dying declaration (Ex.P/20) of the deceased, vis-a-vis, the statement of their relatives have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. Mr. Vikrant Pillay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, while referring to the statements of the relatives of the deceased, namely, father, mother and brother, submits that since there are gross disparities in their statements and that by referring further the statement of the deceased, recorded on 05/11/2013 vide Ex.P/18, wherein it was stated by her that while cooking, her saree got burnt and because of that she died and that 4 by referring further the dying declaration (Ex.P/20), submits that since the same was not recorded either before the Executive Magistrate or before recording her said statement (Ex.P/18), the opinion was obtained by medical officers, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon and the trial Court, while taking note of these material piece of evidence, has not erred in acquitting them as such. 8. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 04/11/2013 at 09:00 A.M., when the deceased, namely, Sunita Das has died on account of the burn injuries. It appears that on the next date of the occurrence of the alleged incident, i.e. 05/11/2013, the statement of the deceased was recorded vide Ex.P/18, wherein, it was stated that on the said fateful day, in the morning at 09:00 A.M., her saree got burnt while cooking and her husband came for her rescue when she shouted and who thereupon brought her to the Hospital for treatment. It appears further that on 09/11/2013, her supplementary statement (dying declaration) was recorded vide Ex.P/20, wherein, it was stated by her that her husband, on account of demand of dowry, has poured the kerosene oil upon her and ablazed her with the aid of match box and when she shouted, he tried to extinguish the fire and was in intoxicated condition. It was stated further in the said statement (Ex.P/20) that when her earlier 5 statement (Ex.P/18) was recorded, she was not in conscious state of mind and, therefore, she has stated that she died because her saree was burnt while cooking the food. 10. In order to ascertain the fact, as to whether, the deceased was burnt by using the kerosene oil by the respondents or not, it is necessary to examine the statement of her relatives. Her father, namely, Ramlal was examined as PW-2 and it was stated by him that he received the information from one Mahendra that his daughter is in hospital and upon knowing the said information, he went to the hospital where his daughter informed him that both i.e. husband- Himanshu Das and father-in-law- Punni Das have poured kerosene oil upon her and ablazed her, while using the match box. However, in his cross-examination, it was stated that the alleged fact was not disclosed to the police authority when his statement was recorded. It reveals further from his statement, particularly paragraph 8, that his daughter was in a good condition for a period of 6 days during the course of treatment at Sitapur Hospital as also at Mission Hospital, Ambikapur. It, thus, appears from his statement that the condition of his daughter was well and it cannot be said that when her statement was recorded on 05/11/2013 (Ex.P/18), she was not in unconscious stage as was stated by her in her supplementary statement (Ex.P/20). 11. That apart, it reveals further from his (PW-2) cross- examination paragraph 10 that he was not aware that whether his son-in-law, namely, Himanshu was taking bath at the boring, which 6 is 50 meters away from the spot, nor was aware that the father-in- law of his deceased daughter was in garden with his 09 months old grand-child. 12. Acccording to Rathkunwar (PW-3), who was neighbour of the deceased, the mother of the deceased, namely, Basanti has raised a doubt that either her husband or her father-in-law has killed her daughter while pouring the kerosene oil on her or, she might have committed suicide while pouring kerosene oil on herself. Mini Bai (PW-4) is the aunt of the deceased and it reveals from her testimony that when she met with her in the hospital, it was informed by deceased- Sunita that her husband has poured the kerosene oil and ablazed her with the aid of match box, however, in her cross- examination, particularly, paragraph 4, it was deposed that the alleged information was given by her for the first time that her husband has poured the kerosene oil upon her while ablazing her with the aid of match box. 13. According to the statement of mother, namely, Basanti (PW-5), her daughter was maltreated and harassed by the respondents because she belongs to the Manjhi community and as she came with inadequate amount of dowry and, deposed further that her daughter informed her that her husband and father-in-law have poured the kerosene oil upon her and ablazed her while using the match box. She, however, stated in her cross-examination that the alleged information as was received by her from her daughter Sunita was not disclosed by her when her statement was recorded by the 7 concerned police authority. That apart, it cannot be said that both the respondents have poured the kerosene oil upon her as according to the dying declaration (Ex.P/20), the husband of her deceased daughter alone has poured the kerosene oil upon her. The statement of the mother, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 14. Anil Kumar Pilot (PW-6) is the brother of the deceased and according to him, his sister was harassed and maltreated by the respondents because she belongs to Manjhi Community and as she has come with inadequate amount of dowry, and stated further that initially, his sister has not stated anything to him, but on 09/11/2013, it was informed by her that her husband and father-in-law has ablazed her by pouring the kerosene oil upon her. It appears further from his statement, particularly, paragraph 7 that when the deceased was at Sitapur Hospital, it was informed by her that her saree was got burnt, while cooking the food, which was also reflected from the deceased’s first statement (Ex.P/18) recorded on 05/11/2013. The said statement of her, thus, appears to be more reliable that she died while cooking the food. 15. From a bare perusal of her supplementary statement (dying declaration) recorded on 09/11/2013, it appears that the husband alone has poured the kerosene oil upon her. It, thus, appears that the alleged version of the relatives of the deceased that both the respondents have poured the kerosene oil upon her, appears to be a false one and, therefore, the statement of the relatives of the deceased cannot be relied upon. 8 16. It is to be seen further that although in her dying declaration (Ex.P/20), it was stated that her earlier statement (Ex.P/18), when it was recorded on 05/11/2013, she was not in full conscious state of mind, however, it appears from the statement of her father, particularly, paragraph 8, where he has admitted very specifically that for a period of 06 days, when she was admitted at Sitapur Hospital as also at District Hospital, Ambikapur, she was in a good condition. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was not in a conscious state of mind as stated by her, in her said dying declaration (Ex.P/20). Even otherwise, the alleged dying declaration was neither recorded by the Executive Magistrate nor before recording of her statement (Ex.P/18), the opinion of the medical expert or doctor was obtained, therefore, her said statement (Ex.P/20) cannot be relied upon. 17. Besides, it appears that although half burnt clothes and jerrycane of kerosene oil were seized vide Ex.P/12, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Parmeshwar Ram (PW-15) and Raju Singh (PW-16), but none of these two witnesses have supported that the alleged articles were recovered in their presence. That apart, though in the FSL report (Ex.P/12), it was mentioned that there is a smell of kerosene oil, but at the time of recovery of those articles, no such smell was found. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the said FSL report (Ex.P/12) in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 18. It is to be seen further that the respondents have examined 9 one Vashisth Das Mahant in their defence, who has stated on the basis of the information given by the deceased’s son that at the time of the occurrence of the alleged incident, the husband of the deceased was taking bath at a place, which was 50 meters away from the house, while father-in-law was in garden alongwith his grand-child of 09 months old. It is therefore, difficult to hold that the respondents were present on the spot when she has sustained the burn injuries. 19. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and, particularly, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 20. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant