58 +0530 1 - Ashok Kumar Mahant S/o Shyamdas Mahant Aged About 23 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 585 of 2016 2025:CGHC:24966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 585 of 2016 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 17:32:58 +0530 1 - Ashok Kumar Mahant S/o Shyamdas Mahant Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. Kudmura, Thana Kartala, Civil And Rev. Distt. - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
14. It is well settled proposition of law that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for doing some business cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Appasaheb (supra) held thus at para 11:- “ In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody coversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR (1996) SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of India, AIR (1997) SC 558). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses of for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 16. For the foregoing discussions, this court finds that the prosecution 7 CRA No. 585 of 2016 has failed to prove the offence of dowry death against the appellant. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant does not deserve to be sustained. 17.
Arguments
For Appellant For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/04/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 113/2015 by the 2 CRA No. 585 of 2016 learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304 B of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Priyanka and marriage between the appellant and Prinyanka was solemnized prior to 2-3 months from the date of incident i.e. 03/07/2015. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that on the information given by Mikhail Gadiya (PW-9) at Police Station Punjipathra, that his cousin Priyanka Chauhan had died by hanging herself in her room on 03/07/2015, merg intimation was registered. Panchnama and spot map was prepared, thereafter dead body was sent for postmortem. It is alleged that the appellant harassed Priyanka/deceased by demanding dowry, as a result of which, Priyanka committed suicide by hanging herself. After due investigation, the appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 4. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3 CRA No. 585 of 2016 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13/04/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that no demand for dowry was made by the appellant. The prosecution has not presented any evidence to the effect that just before the death of deceased, she was harassed in any way by the appellant for dowry. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are in the form of uniform statements and the fact of dowry harassment was not established. No any report/complaint was made by the prosecution side regarding dowry harassment. Father of deceased/Rangadhar Chouhan has admitted in his evidence that his daughter/deceaed had not made any statement against the appellant before her death regarding dowry. Thus, the offence against the appellant has not been proved. From the evidence of the parents of the deceased, it can be seen that after the marriage, both the couple stayed in their house for a period of two months and during this period, there is no complaint regarding any demand of dowry by the accused. According to these witnesses, when the couple stayed outside for a period of one 4 CRA No. 585 of 2016 month, the appellant used to demad money from them to meet out the domestic expences. He would submit that the said demad of money for domestice expences cannot be said to be a demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In support of his contention, learned counsel would placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court renderred in the matter of Appasaheb and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra1. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. PW-1(Rangadhar Chouhan), is the father of the deceased. He stated in cross-examination of his deposition that the accused has not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage. He also stated that after the marriage, both the couple stayed in his house for a period of two months and during this period, the accused never demanded any dowry. He also stated that even when the couple used to stay in village Gerwani, no demand was made by the appellant towards dowry. However, the deceased stated this witness that the appellant is demanding money from doing some 1 (2007) 9 SCC 721 5 CRA No. 585 of 2016 business and to meet out the domestic expenses and in this regard, no report has been lodged. PW-2, Leena Chouhan, is the mother of deceased. She also corroborated the statement of her husband PW-1. 11. PW-3, Ghaneshwar Jatram in whose house, the accused and deceased used to stay on rent. This witness stated that during the stay of the couple in his house, no quarrel took place between them. 12. PW-9, Mikhail Gadia, is the cousin brother of deceased. He gave the merg intimation Ex.P-10 in respect of death of the deceased. This witness stated in his cross-examination that at the time of incident also, no quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased. 13. From the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, it is manifest that the deceased committed suicide within three months from the date of marriage. During this entire period, there is no allegation against the appellant that he harassed the deceased on the ground of demand of dowry. Even the parents of the deceased categorically stated that after the marriage, for about two months, both the couple were stayed with them and during this period, the appellant never demanded dowry from them. According to these witnesses, when the couple started staying in a rented house at Gerwani, they faced financial crisis and for which, the appellant used to demand money to meet out the domestic expenses and to 6 CRA No. 585 of 2016 do some business.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. 18. Appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 19. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep