Mathura Prasad s/o Late Parmeshwar Keshrari, aged about 65 years, Resident of Shiv Mandir v. 1 - Vinay Keshri S/o Baboolal, aged about 35 years, 2 - Pintu @
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.16 12:35:55 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:32876-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 88 of 2011 Mathura Prasad s/o Late Parmeshwar Keshrari, aged about 65 years, Resident of Shiv Mandir Road, Jhariya, Dhanbad, Jharkhand --- Appellant versus 1 - Vinay Keshri S/o Baboolal, aged about 35 years, 2 - Pintu @ Virendra Keshri S/o Baboolal Keshri, aged about 33 years Both are resident of Asola, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 3 – State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) --- Respondents For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For State/ Respondent No.3 :Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. :Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate :None, though served. And ACQA No. 137 of 2012 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Surguja (CG) 2 Versus ---Appellant
Legal Reasoning
1 - Vinay Keshri S/o Babulal Keshri Aged About 35 Years 2 - Pintu @ Virendra Keshri S/o Babulal Keshri Aged About 33 Years Both are R/o Village Asola, P.S. Ambikapur, District- Surguja (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State For Respondents :Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. :None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 15.07.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG) in Sessions Trial No.63/2009, whereby, the respondents- Vinay Keshri and Pintu @ Virendra Keshri, have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and, in alternatively, under Section
Decision
302/34 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2008, 3 a merg intimation (Ex.P-13) was lodged by respondent No.1- Vinay Keshri, who is the husband of deceased- Smt. Rekha Keshri, before the Police Station, Ambikapur, stating therein, that after completing his routine work, he was busy in his Grocery Shop and his daughter, namely, Ku. Pallavi after returning from the School has raised an alarm and shouted for help, as his wife- Rekha was not responding to his child and the room was closed from inside. It is stated further that after opening the door of the house, the deceased was found hanging herself on the ceiling fan and was died. The matter was thereafter, investigated and the inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and the autopsy of dead body was conducted by Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW-9), who vide his report (Ex.P-9) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia, but no definite opinion was given about the cause and nature of death, as the body was decomposed and after receiving the said postmortem report, an FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered against the respondent No.1 and his brother Pintu @ Virendra Keshri for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.520/2008, as during the investigation, it was revealed that her neck was pressed while giving the shape of murder of hanging in order to the eliminate the evidence and, during the further investigation, ceiling fan and a wooden plank were recovered from respondent No.1-Vinay Keshri vide (Ex.P-4) on 22/10/2008. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against the 4 respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charges were framed against them under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and, in alternatively under Section 302/34 of IPC, and the charges so framed, were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, while one witness 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 respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime, and being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State as well as the counsel appearing for the father of the deceased, submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence of the close relatives of the deceased, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them as such. 5 6. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice of these appeals. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. The respondent No.1-Vinay Keshri, the husband of the deceased- Rekha Keshri and respondent No.2- Pintu@ Virendra Keshri, who is brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased, have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and in alternatively under Section 302/34 of IPC for the incident occurred on 16.10.2008 when the deceased was found dead by hanging herself on the ceiling fan. It is alleged by the prosecution that since the deceased was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on account of the demand of money, and therefore, she died on the said day, i.e. 16.10.2008 on account of alleged harassment. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the mother of the deceased, namely, Manju Keshri was examined as PW-6 and it appears from her testimony that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with respondent No.1-Vinay Keshri at village Asola, 13-14 years prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident and stated further that whenever her daughter used to come, she always used to state that she was being harassed by her husband and the mother-in-law 6 and, also informed her that they always used to demand the money from her. Further of her testimony would show that she received the information from her another daughter, namely, Anjana that she (deceased- Rekha) was assaulted by the respondents on account of demand of money and, it reveals further from her testimony that she received the information regarding the death of her daughter from one Sushil Gupta, who is the husband of her sister and, deposed further that when she reached the spot, she has seen the injuries on the body of her daughter and, stated further that when her statement was recorded by the Police, though, she has stated that her daughter was assaulted and maltreated by the respondents, but was not aware as to how her said version was not mentioned in her statement (Ex. D-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was, however, stated in her cross-examination, at paragraph 7, that with regard to the alleged assault, neither any meeting was convened nor the alleged fact was reported to the Police Station. 10. Sister of the deceased, namely, Anjana Kesari, was examined as PW-7 and according to her, it appears that the marriage of her sister was solemnized with respondent No.1-Vinay Keshri on 13th December 1996 and, according to her, she was assaulted by the respondents on account of the demand of money. It appears further from her testimony that on 13.10.2008, she received a telephonic call from her deceased- sister, who informed her regarding the illicit relation of her husband with 7 the wife of his brother and, it was stated further that she has informed her that if she (deceased-Rekha) disclosed the said fact, she would then be killed by them. She deposed further that, although, she received the information from her deceased-sister on 13.10.2008 regarding the alleged illicit relation of her husband with the wife of his brother, but the said fact was, however, not disclosed by her to her parents. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that on 16.10.2010, a telephonic talk was made between her brother- Vinay Kumar Kesari and her deceased- sister, where she informed him that she was being assaulted by the respondents and other members of their family and was threatened to kill her. 11. Brother of the deceased, namely, Vinay Kumar Kesari was examined as PW-13 and according to his statement, it appears that whenever, he used to talk with his deceased-sister, she always used to inform him that because of demand of money, she was assaulted by her husband and, when he talked her on 16.10.2008 on phone at about 1.30 pm, the day when the alleged incident had occurred, he was informed by her that her husband- Vinay Keshri is assaulting her and threatening to kill and in the evening around 6.00 pm, he received the information from his maternal uncle (Mausa) that, she has died. 12. Father of the deceased, namely, Mathura Prasad Kesari was examined as PW-12 and according to him, when his younger daughter- Anjana returned from his deceased-daughter’s house, it was informed 8 by her that she was assaulted by her brother-in-law (Jija), the respondent No.1, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law. It appears further from his testimony that she has not informed to him that on account of demand of money, she was assaulted either by respondent No.1 or her mother-in-law or sister of him (respondent No.1). Further of his testimony would show that she was given heavy work for doing the household activities because of non-fulfilling the demand of money, but has not stated that she was assaulted on account of non-fulfilling the alleged demand of money. It reveals further from his testimony that when he reached the house of his daughter, he has seen injuries on her forehead and blood was oozing from her nose and has seen the injuries on her face, neck and chest as well and, stated further that he has never lodged any report regarding the alleged assault, which was being given to his daughter, either to the police or has convened any meeting in this regard or has taken any step to get the dispute settled. The statements of others’ are formal in nature 13. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid evidence that the mother (PW-6) and sister (PW-7) of the deceased, though, have stated that the deceased was assaulted by her husband and in-laws because of non-fulfilling the alleged demand of money, but the said fact was, however, not found to be reflected from the statement of the deceased’s father, namely, Mathura Prasad Kesari (PW-12), that she was assaulted on account of the alleged demand of money. Although, 9 it reveals that when the parents of the deceased have reached the house of their deceased-daughter, they have seen certain injuries on her body, but it appears from the statement of the Investigating Officer, namely, K.K. Nag, examined as PW-14, particularly paragraph 13, would, however, reveal the fact that when the inquest of the dead body was carried out by him, he has seen only a black mark on her neck and has not seen any injury on her body and, similar is the statement of Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW-9) though, according to him, certain marks were found on her neck, but was unable to state how the alleged mark was made as the body was started to decompose when he conducted the autopsy of the dead body and stated further that the injuries on her chest were not sufficient to cause her death and, from his cross- examination, at paragraph 13, it appears that he has not seen and found any kind of sign of struggle on her body for saving herself against the use of force. 14. That apart, it is to be seen further as reflected from the statement of daughter of the deceased, namely, Pallavi (DW-1), that the door of the house was found to be closed from the inside and her uncle, through the window, has seen her mother hanging on the ceiling fan and, in her cross-examination, it was denied by her that her mother was harassed or assaulted by her father on account of demand of any means. 15. In view of the aforesaid background, it is difficult to hold that the 10 deceased, whose marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.1- Vinay Keshri on 13.12.1996, more than 12 years prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, was murdered by the respondents on account of demand of money, as alleged by the prosecution and, 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 these appeals. 16. Both these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita