State of Chhattisgarh v. CH Narsingh Rao and others) by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur
Case Details
SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.1 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 2025:CGHC:48756-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Arising out of common impugned judgment dt. 31.07.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.17 of 2015 (State of Chhattisgarh v. CH Narsingh Rao and others) by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG)] Acquittal Appeal No. 256 of 2015 M. Vengal Rao S/o Late Shri M. Iyanna Aged About 52 Years R/o Anarkali Basti, Ward No. 5, Police Station Hydro, Port Blair. --- Appellant Versus 1 - C. H. Narsingh Rao S/o C.H. Kondayya Aged About 27 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - C.H. Kondayya S/o C.H. Acheyya Aged About 65 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - C.H. Narayanamma W/o C.H. Kondayya Aged About 60 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-titles taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Appellant Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No.1-3 For Respondent No.4 Mr. RS Marhas, Addl. Adv. General ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : : WITH Page No.2 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 Acquittal Appeal No. 48 of 2016 State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - C. H. Narsingh Rao S/o C.H. Kondaiyya Aged About 27 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - C.H. Kondaiyya S/o C.H. Achaiyya Aged About 65 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - C.H. Narayanamma W/o C.H. Kondaiyya Aged About 60 Years R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-titles taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/State For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (23.09.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2015, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both the matters are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. (2) Both the acquittal appeals, i.e. ACQA-256-2015 filed by the father of the deceased- CH Rama, namely, M Vengal Rao (PW-04) and ACQA-48-2016 filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Page No.3 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the “CrPC”) are calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of a common impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.17 of 2015 (State of Chhattisgarh v. CH Narsingh Rao and others) by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused/respondents No.01 to 03 herein for offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC.
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the case, in brief: (3) According to the case of the prosecution, the marriage of CH Rama (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) was solemnized with accused- CH Narsingh Rao (A-1) on 22.07.2012. However, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 22.09.2014 at her matrimonial house under abnormal circumstances within 07 years of her marriage. Accused- CH Kondaiyya (A-2) is father-in-law of the deceased, whereas CH narayanamma (A-3) is mother-in-law of the deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that after the marriage of the deceased and prior to the date she committed suicide, acquitted accused persons (respondents No.01 to 03 herein) all have subjected deceased with cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry and, due to which, deceased suffered harassment mentally and physically and, therefore, committed suicide by hanging. As such, the accused persons are said to have committed the offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC. Page No.4 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 (4) It is also the case of the prosecution that immediately after the incident, on the basis of information so given to the police, merg intimation (Ex.P/25) was registered by the police on 22.09.2014 and, thereafter, when father of the deceased- M Vengal Rao (PW-04), reported the matter to the police by submitting written complaint (Ex.P/20) on 27.09.2014, FIR (Ex.P/09) was registered against all the acquitted accused persons for offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and wheels of investigation started running, in which, site map was prepared vide Ex.P/13. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/01 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/02. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Basak (PW-02) and, according to PM Report (Ex.P/05), the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to compression of neck. Certain articles were seized vide Ex.P/14 to P/18. The accused persons were arrested vide Ex.P/26 to Ex.P/28. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination and FSL report is Ex.P/33 & P/34. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons in the competent court of criminal jurisdiction and, ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Page No.5 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 (5) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents, whereas the accused persons in support of their defence, have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. (6) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to acquit all the accused persons for offences under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2015, against which, both these acquittal appeals are preferred before this Court. Submissions of parties:
Legal Reasoning
(7) Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State in ACQA-48-2016 submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons, as there is ample evidence available on record to connect them with the offences in question. He further submitted that the evidence of family members of the deceased i.e. M Vengal Rao (PW-04) [father of the deceased], Smt. CH Nirmala (PW-05) [sister of the deceased], Smt. M Nageshwari (PW-06 [mother of the deceased], CH Ratnaiyya (PW-07) [maternal uncle of the deceased) and CH Venkteshwar Rao (PW-08) [brother-in-law of the deceased] clearly establish all the ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304-B of IPC. The death of the deceased was within seven years o her marriage and the death has occurred Page No.6 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 otherwise than the normal circumstances and soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. Though the learned trial Court has placed reliance on the alleged suicide note (Ex.P/11), written by the deceased, but no question was ever put to the parents and blood relatives of the deceased with regard to the authenticity of the same and, therefore, the same cannot be said to have been written by the deceased. Therefore, it is not a case where the accused persons were entitled for acquittal and the learned trial Court has committed grave legal error in acquitting the accused persons. Hence, in exercise of appellate power, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant-State deserves to be allowed and, further, the accused persons (respondents No.01 to 03) are liable to be punished for offences under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC. (8) Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (father of the deceased) in ACQA-256-2015 would borrow the arguments putforth by Mr. RS Marha, learned Addl. AG and further submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons, as there are sufficient evidence available on record to connect them with the offences in question and, therefore, his appeal be allowed by punishing the the acquitted accused persons for the offences under Section 304-B/34 of IPC. (9) Per-contra, Mr. PK Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the acquitted accused persons (A-1 to A-3) by rely upon the decision of Page No.7 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand 1 submits that the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal is extremely limited. He further submits that though in the present case the deceased has committed suicide by hanging within seven years of her marriage, but other necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 304-B of IPC are completely missing and not established. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting all the accused persons are well merited and, no interference by this Court is called for in it. Hence, both the acquittal appeals are liable to be dismissed. (10) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Discussion and analysis: (11) At the very outset, we would firstly consider the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, for which, it would be profitable to notice the relevant principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another (supra), whereby in Para-11 & 12 it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence etc. and observed as 1 2025 INSC 114 Page No.8 of 20 IN ACQA-256-2015 & ACQA-48-2016 under: “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.