Jagat Ram Chouhan, S/o Bhogilal Chouhan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Vill. Patrapali, P.O v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District- Raigarh
Case Details
PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.04 10:33:03 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:10238-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 57 of 2013 Jagat Ram Chouhan, S/o Bhogilal Chouhan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Vill. Patrapali, P.O. Patrapali, P.S.-Chhal, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Thanda Ram Chouhan, S/o Puran Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Vill. Belari, Bhupdevpur, P.S. Bhupdevpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Kaushal Chouhan, S/o Puran Singh Chouhan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Vill. Belari, Bhupdevpur, P.S. Bhupdevpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Puran Singh Chouhan, S/o Tulsi Ram Chouhan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Vill. Belari, Bhupdevpur, P.S. Bhupdevpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
5 - Smt.Jamuna Bai Chouhan, W/o Puran Singh Chouhan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Vill. Belari, Bhupdevpur, P.S. Bhupdevpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. 2 D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 03/03/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 02/09/2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.158/2012, whereby, the respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 of IPC and alternatively under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, one Jogeshwar informed the Police Station- G.R.P., Raigarh, on 03/07/2010 that deceased has died as she was dashed with the train. Upon receiving the said merg intimation, an inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/10 on 03/07/2010 and the dead body was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Sunil Ratre (PW-6), who opined the cause of death to be hemorrhage shock occurred due to multiple injuries in body and accordingly, it was opined to be accidental in nature. Thereafter, on 26/03/2011, a written complaint (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the father of the deceased while addressing to the Chief Minister of the State alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the respondent No.2- Thanda Ram sometimes in the year, 3 2010 and within the period of 45 days of her marriage, she was murdered by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. It is alleged further in the said report that his daughter had informed him that she was being harassed and maltreated by them on account of demand of dowry. Based upon the said complaint, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered on 03/05/2012 by the Police Station- Bhupdevpur of District-Raigarh against her husband and in-laws with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.40/2012 and that by completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Kharsia against them with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, where the charges have been framed against them under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 and alternatively, under Section 306 and 302 of IPC and the charges so framed have been denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents No.2 to 5, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and has exhibited 10 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the said respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime as mentioned hereinabove and, being aggrieved, the father of the 4 deceased has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondents No.2 to 5 are not involved in connection with the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.1 has supported the contention of the counsel for the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents No.2 to 5 have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 of IPC and alternatively, under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased, namely, Smt. Jai Laxmi was solemnized with respondent No.2-Thanda Ram sometimes in the year, 2010 and within the period of 45 days of her marriage, she died as she was dashed by the train on 03/07/2010 in the morning and immediately thereafter, the merg (Ex.P/3) was lodged. It appears that when the inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/10, none of the relatives of the deceased, at that particular time, has raised any kind of suspicion regarding the alleged demand of dowry made by the said respondents and the 5 said fact was revealed from the statement of the uncle of the deceased, namely, Boatlal Chouhan (PW-7), nor any report was lodged immediately after the sad demise of the deceased. The report (Ex.P/1) appears to have been lodged by the father of the deceased only on 26/03/2011 i.e. after passing of considerable period of more than 08 months even without any explanation as to why it was lodged after such a delay. It is to be seen further that in the alleged complaint (Ex.P/1), it was, however, not stated that her husband and in-laws were demanded either motor-cycle or the refrigerator as was alleged in his statement (Ex.D/1) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It reveals further from his said statement that his daughter had informed to cousin, namely, Santosh Kumar regarding the alleged demand of motor-cycle and the refrigerator and was being harassed by them for its non- fulfillment. However, while deviating his said statement, it was deposed that his daughter had informed regarding the alleged demand of dowry to his mother, who, however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, was not examined in order to establish the said fact. Bhogilal Chouhan (PW-2), the grandfather of the deceased and according to him, his granddaughter, the deceased, had informed him that the said respondents are quarreling with her with regard to the demand of motor-cycle and refrigerator, however, the said fact, as observed herein-above, was not made by the deceased’s father nor the alleged of his version is reflected from his statement (Ex.D/4) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Santosh Kumar (PW-3), who, however, stated that he was informed by the 6 deceased that she was being tortured and harassed by the respondents on account of the alleged demand, but was kept silent for two years and has not disclosed the said fact to anyone. His alleged version, therefore, cannot be held to be acceptable in order to attribute the alleged act of the respondents. Other prosecution witnesses are formal in nature. 9. Pertinently to be noted here further, as reflected from the statement of Investigating Officer, namely, A.K. Uike (PW-5), who inquired the matter after receiving the merg (Ex.P/3), that the alleged allegations regarding demand of dowry as was made by her relatives, were however, not found to be true. In view of such circumstances, and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that the deceased was maltreated or harassed either by her husband or in-laws on account of alleged demand of motor-cycle and refrigerator and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondents form the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant