Dhamtari ( C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15630-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2024 1. Manoj Pardhi S/o Shatrughan Pardhi Aged About 20 Years, 2. Shatrughan Pardhi S/o Late. Jeevlal Pardhi (Died), 3. Uma Bai Pardhi W/o Shatrughan Pardhi Aged About 50 Years, 4. Lalita @ Ghasnin Pardhi D/o Shatrughan Pardhi Aged About 30 Years, 5. Savita Pardhi W/o Vikram Pardhi Aged About 26 Years, 6. Savitri Pardhi W/o Suresh Pardhi Aged About 22 Years, All appellants are R/o Village- Pardhi Para Charra, Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari ( C.G.). ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. D.N. Prajapati & Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.07 18:06:49 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 03.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.47/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000-1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06-06 months. 2. A report received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dhamgari (C.G.) dated 02.04.2025 during the pendency of this appeal regarding death of appellant No.2- Shatrughan Pardhi who has died on 03.02.2025 and in this regard his death certificate and covering memo are also filed. As there is no application has been filed under Section 394 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for continuation of appeal by the legal heirs of the appellant No.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of death of the appellant No.2, this appeal is abated on his behalf. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Ratni Bai Pardhi was married to accused Manoj Pardhi as per social customs and rituals. It is alleged that since the marriage, her 3 husband accused Manoj Pardhi, her mother-in-law Uma Bai, father-in-law Shatrughan Pardhi and sisters-in-law Lalita, Savita, Savitri were constantly harassing her physically and mentally by saying that she has not brought dowry from her father's house and demanding Rs. 10,000/- by using obscene word, due to which the deceased-Ratni Bai Pardhi committed suicide by hanging herself inside the house. 4. On finding that the crime was committed by the accused, a case was registered against the accused persons under Section 304B/34 IPC and after completing investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial
Facts
Magistrate First Class, Kurud for trial. The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Judicial Magistrate, Kurud and this session case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari Court by the Sessions Judge for trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the charge levelled against them and stated that they are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph one of this appeal. Hence, this appeal by the appellants. 4 6.
Legal Reasoning
16. The expression “soon before death” in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was considered by this Court in Hira Lal vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi; 2003 (8) SCC 80 and this Court in paragraph (9) observed as under:- “9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances”. The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113- B of the Evidence [pic]Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression “soon before” is 15 not defined. A reference to the expression “soon before” used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods “soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession”. The determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before” would normally imply that the interval should not be much the cruelty or harassment between concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 17. In Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388, this Court considered the expression “soon before death” and held as under:- “……The expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. ‘Soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113- B of the Evidence Act. The expression ‘soon 16 before her death’ used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test……”
Arguments
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants have never subjected the deceased to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and there is no iota of evidence to show that appellants have subjected the deceased to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. He further contended that before the incident, there was no complaint or report made either by the deceased or her parental family members regarding demand of dowry. The deceased and appellant No.1 performed love marriage, therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry from his side and the relation with the deceased and her parental family members were closed, due to which, she was upset and committed suicide. The material independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. He further contended that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in convicting the appellants only on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses, though their evidences are contradictory to each other. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are material contradiction and omission in the case diary statement and Court deposition of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be relied upon and the same cannot be made basis for conviction of appellants. It is therefore, prayed that this High Court may quash/set-aside the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2024 and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the charge levelled against them. 5 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the same requires no interference and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Chadrika Bai (PW-1), mother of the deceased- Ratni Bai has stated in her statement that her daughter-Ratni Bai died five months ago. Accused Manoj Pardhi had kidnapped her daughter. She had searched the surrounding areas for the person who kidnapped her daughter, but could not find her. After two-three days, the accused brought Ratni Bai to his house. The accused kept her in his house and got married. For 15 days after the marriage, her daughter was in the house of accused Manoj Pardhi. her daughter came to her house on Friday after the marriage in disguise and told her that her father-in-law told her that money has been spent in the marriage, she should ask for Rs.10,000/- from her parents. Therefore, this witness has mainly leveled allegation against husband Manoj and Father-in-law i.e. Shatrughan Pardhi and Shatrughan Pardhi has died. 6 This witness has stated in her cross-examination (Para - 12) that on the day of marriage, Shatrughn came to her house to invite them, then she refused to go to the marriage and said that Ratni Bai is dead for her. Ratni and Manoj got married in village Charra. 10. Panchuram Paradhi (PW2), father of the deceased has stated in his statement (Para-2) that the incident took place about a year ago. His daughter Ratni was kidnapped by the accused Manoj Pardhi and taken to his house. His daughter Ratni had told him that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- from her as dowry and taunted her. This witness has stated in his cross-examination (Para -9) that before marriage, his wife Chandrika Bai used to beat Ratni Bai a lot telling her not to marry Manoj. After Ratni Bai's marriage, his wife Chandrika Bai and his family members stopped talking to Ratni Bai. Ratni was very unhappy because they do not talk to her. On asking the witness whether Ratni was well taken care of by Manoj after marriage, the witness said that he took good care of her for two-four days, after that the incident happened. 11. Suresh Pardhi (PW-5), who is the brother-in-law of the appellant No.1, in his statement at para 2 has stated that on the date of incident they were sleeping since his son was ill, therefore, his wife woke him up and to bring the medicine they went to the place of 7 appellant No.1 and deceased where they saw that the appellant was sleeping on the cot and the deceased was found hanging in the room. 12. Dr. Naresh Kamde (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. The injuries, opinion regarding cause of death he has proved the post-mortem report, which is marked as Exhibit-P/12 to the records. In external examination, he found that the deceased’s body was stiff, the body was cold, the pupils of the eyes had spread on both sides, the face had turned blue and patches of blood were present on the forehead. There was a blood clot in the left eye and foam was coming out from the left nostril. There was a scratch mark below the beard. The length and width of which were 1.5 cm x .5 cm x 2.2 cm. There was a mark of a noose around the neck on a round shape, on which there were no marks of any kind of fiber. The length of the neck was normal and the tongue was sticking out. There were half- moon shaped nail marks on the lower part of the front side of the neck. The skin around the noose mark and the skin below it were found to be pale in color. The open rope with knot in the middle was produced before him by the constable. The length of the rope was 162 cm which was made of coconut husk and the second nylon rope was 84 cm long and 4 cm wide. The total circumference of the noose was 20 cm and 1 cm wide. On internal 8 examination, the thyroid bone of the neck was broken. There was blood clotting on both sides of it. The jugular vein and jugular artery were completely dilated. Right lung was congested. Both lungs were filled with blood. There was no damage to heart and peritoneum. Stomach contained undigested food. Small intestine contained some undigested food and water and mucus. Urine was empty, kidney was empty. Liver and spleen were normal. Regarding the items sent for examination, the stomach and the items inside it, a piece of the second lung, liver, spleen, a piece of heart, uterus have also been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Opinion given by the doctor that the cause of death was obstruction of the windpipe due to suffocation and asphyxia. The time of death is within 24 hours of the investigation. Nature of death is Homicidal. 13. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under: “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 9 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 purpose 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 not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 14. The necessary ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are as follows: (1) The death of the woman was caused due to burns or bodily injury or due to unnatural circumstances. (2) The death should be within seven years of marriage. (3) It is shown that soon before her, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband. (4) The cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry. 10 (5) The cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 15. In order to prove that the death which took place within 7 years of marriage and to attract Section 304-B IPC there are certain necessary ingredients which are required to be proved before the Court. As per the definition of dowry death under Section 304 B IPC and the wording under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to show that soon before the death woman concerned was subjected to cruelty or harrasment for or in connection with demand of dowry. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death, therefore, the first parameter which is to be satisfied is demand of dowry. 16. The dowry has been explained in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “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 by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with 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) 11 applies. Explanation I.— * * * Explanation II.— The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra and Another {(2022) 5 SCC 401} reiterated the earlier judgment rendered in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in {(2015) 6 SCC 477} wherein the Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been split into six distinct parts for a better understanding of the said provision. Para 11 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 11. In a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477, Section 2 of the Dowry Act has been split into six distinct parts for a better understanding of the said provision, which are as follows: “8. A perusal of Section 2 shows that this definition can be broken into six distinct parts: (1) Dowry must first consist of any property or valuable security— the word “any” is a word of width and would, therefore, include within it property and valuable security of any kind whatsoever. (2) Such property or security can be given or even agreed to be given. The actual giving of such property or security is, therefore, not necessary. (3) Such property or security can be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly. (4) Such giving or agreeing to give can again be not only by one party to a marriage to the other but also by the parents of either party or by any other person to either party to the marriage or 12 to any other person. It will be noticed that this clause again widens the reach of the Act insofar as those guilty of committing the offence of giving or receiving dowry is concerned. (5) Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time after the marriage. Thus, it can be many years after a marriage is solemnised. (6) Such giving or receiving must be in connection with the marriage of the parties. Obviously, the expression “in connection with” would in the context of the social evil sought to be tackled by the Dowry Prohibition Act mean “in relation with” or “relating to”.” 18. Applying the aforesaid principle, the evidence of the mother Chandrika Bai (PW-1) & father Panchram Paradhi (PW-2), which are the primary evidence would show that the deceased and the appellant performed love marriage and because of that they do not used to talk to the deceased. This witness further stated that he do not know how the deceased has died. 19. In order to attract Section 304 B IPC read with Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, there has to be proximity test soon before her death the cuelty must have been meted out. There is no evidence on record to evaluate the proximity test. 20. As per evidence of mother Chandrika Bai (PW-1) & father Panchram Paradhi (PW-2) of the deceased it is crystal clear that harassment made by the husband Manoj Pardhi and his father Shatrughan Pardhi to the deceased for demand of Rs.10,000/- and 10 K.G. Rice because of marriage expenses and Shatrughan Pardhi, has died during the pendency of appeal. 13 21. From the evidence following facts have been shown:- 1- Marriage was solemnized between appellant No.1 and deceased before two months from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 25/07/2022. 2- The death of the deceased was caused due to unnatural circumstances. She has committed suicide. 3- It is proved that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty / harassment by her husband and father-in-law. 4- The cruelty/harassment was for demand of dowry on account of marriage expenses of Rs.10,000/- and 6 K.G. Rice and it is also proved that the deceased committed suicide in her bedroom, where husband was present in the room. 5- There is no explanation tendered by the husband of the deceased i.e. appellant No.1 how his wife has committed suicide in presence of him and other family members. With the above mentioned, Section 113 B of the Evidence Act would be applicable and presumption would be drawn that the husband caused the dowry death due to demand of dowry. Father-in-law of the deceased Shatrugahn has died during pendency of this appeal and appeal is finally abated against him. 14 22. The expression soon before death was considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab {(2015) 2 SCC 629} at para 16, 17 & 18 has laid down certain parameters, which are reproduced hereinunder:-