1 - Prahlad Bharti S/o Kholu Bharti, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kurma v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1885 of 2019 1 - Prahlad Bharti S/o Kholu Bharti, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kurma, Police Station - Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sumarin Bai W/o Kholu Bharti, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kurma, Police Station - Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 22/01/2025 1. This appeal arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th November, 2019 passed by Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 169 of 2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 (B) read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 2 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are that deceased Puja @ Mona Goswami was married to appellant No. 1 – Prahlad Bharti on 22.4.2014. After marriage, she was being harrassed for demand of dowry by demanding motorcycle and used to beat her by her husband. On 29.05.2015, at about 9 PM, she received burn injuries and immediately thereafter she was taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where she died on 30.05.2015 during treatment. Police memo was sent by the Doctor, CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur to City Kotwali, Bilaspur, which is Ex.P-5 and the merg intimation (Ex.P-6) was recorded by Police of City Kotwali, Bilaspur. Inquest report (Ex.P-2) was prepared in presence of witnesses. Dead-body was sent for post-mortem to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where Dr. Sushma Mahajan (PW-11) and Dr. R.K. Markam (PW-12) have conducted post-mortem of the dead-body of the deceased and found 92% burn injuries on the person of the deceased and according to them, the death of the deceased was due to shock caused by excessive burn injuries and gave post-mortem report (Ex.P- 16). Spot map (Ex.P-4) was prepared by Patwari and spot map (Ex.P-12) was prepared by the Police. One stove filled with ½ liter kerosene, and burnt piece of blouse was seized from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P-16). The query was raised from the doctor about the nature of death and the Doctor has opined in query report (Ex.P-14) that since the body was burnt to the extent of 92%, therefore, they could not given any definite opinion about the nature of her death. FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 (B) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants have been arrested on 15.07.2015. Statement of the witnesses have also been recorded. 3. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 3 4. The trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and in alternative under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Initially, the charge-sheet was framed against another co-accused namely Kholu Bharti also and charges have also been framed against him but during trial he died, therefore, criminal case against him was dropped. 5. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appear against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence 6. After appreciating of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, the accused/appellants have preferred instant appeal challenging the same. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the offence. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no evidence with respect to harassment or cruelty given by the accused persons to the deceased soon before her death and without there being any sufÏcient evidence, they have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences. Evidence of parents of the deceased are inconsistent, which cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellants in alleged offence. Since the deceased died and due to their natural love, her parents have made allegations against the appellants to satisfy their grudge and, therefore, they have lodged the report against them. There is no nexus and 4 proximity with the death of deceased and any act, which amounts to harrassment by the appellants. He would next submit that learned trial Court has awarded excessive sentence for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC and the incident is of the year 2015; minimum sentence of seven years is provided for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC and, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the appellants may be sentenced for the minimum sentence of seven years, as provided in Section 304B of the IPC. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the submission made on behalf of the appellants would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Deceased died only after about one year of her marriage in unnatural circumstances. There are sufÏcient evidence with respect to harassment or cruelty given by the accused persons to the deceased and she received burn injuries in her matrimonial house and the evidence with respect to the harassment & cruelty soon before her death for demand of dowry is reflected from the evidence of her parents i.e. (PW-1), (PW-2) & (PW-3), who are father, maternal aunt and cousin of deceased. Therefore, there are sufÏcient material available on record to hold them guilty for the alleged offence, as such, the appeal filed by the appellants have no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the trial Court. 10. So far as unnatural death of the deceased is concerned, Dr. Sushma Mahajan (PW-11) and Dr. R.K. Markam (PW-12), who conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, have stated in their deposition that at the time of post-mortem of the dead body, they found 92% burn injuries on the body of the deceased and further opined that she died due to shock caused by excessive burn injuries. Neck, chest, abdomen, back, both the limbs, eyes and legs were burnt. Nothing could be elicited by the defence in the evidence of 5 these two witnesses, which makes their evidence disbelieved. Death of deceased within seven years of marriage has also not been disputed by the accused persons. Admittedly, the marriage between appellant No. 1 and the deceased was solemnized on 22.04.2014 and she died in unnatural circumstances by receiving burn injuries on 30.5.2015, therefore, it is proved that deceased has died within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances. 11. The next question for consideration would be whether accused persons have subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, by which, deceased died, (PW- 2) – father of the deceased/victim has stated in his deposition that after the marriage, his son-in-law used to come to his house and when he asked about his motorcycle, he disclosed that his motorcycle was kept by his parents. On the next day of Holi festival, his daughter has made a telephonic call and informed him that the appellants are assaulting her for demand of motorcycle. When they had gone to her house, his daughter has informed that the accused persons have assaulted her by Danda, thereafter, they convinced the accused persons and returned back to their house. After about 15 days of that incident, his co-brother (Sadhhu) has informed him that his daughter has got burnt. When they reached to village of her daughter, deceased has already been shifted to CIMS, Bilaspur and in the next day, his daughter has died due to the burn injuries. He specifically alleged that appellants have harrassed her and also beaten her for demand of motorcycle. In his cross-examination, nothing could be extracted from the evidence of this witness, so that allegation made by him could be disbelieved or even it could be presumed that they have not harassed the deceased. 12. Chetan Gir (PW-3), who is cousin brother of the deceased, he too has sated that when he met with the deceased, she informed that appellants/accused are harassing her for demand of motorcycle. He convinced 6 the appellants not to harass the deceased. After after 15 days of that incident, he came to know that deceased has received burn injuries. This witness has also proved the fact that just 15 days back from the incident, there was some incident of marpeet with the deceased, which she informed to her parents and when parents of the deceased had gone there, she shown her injuries to them, at that time, parents of the deceased have convinced the accused persons. 13. Komal Goswami (PW-4) is the person of village, who accompanied father of the deceased at the time when he had gone to house of the deceased, he, too, has stated that the deceased was being harrassed on demand of motorcycle 15 days prior to date of incident, they had gone to her house to convince them. He stated in his deposition that when he received information about the incident, he immediately rushed to the house of the deceased and saw that she was lying in burnt condition in her house and informed him that she was being burnt by pouring kerosene oil. He too has stated in his evidence that just 15 days back, there was incident of marpeet with the deceased, for which, they convinced the accused persons not to harass her. 14. Lata Bai (PW-1), who is maternal aunt of the deceased, though in her initial statement, she could not support the case of the prosecution, but when leading question was being asked from her, she stated that the deceased was being harrassed by her in-laws in connection with demand of motorcycle, by which, she received burn injuries and ultimately died. Although, this witness has admitted in her cross-examination that when she came to know about harrassment of the deceased, she has not lodged report to anyone, but that itself does not make any circumstance, which makes her evidence doubtful. 15. From all these evidences, it has been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was being harrassed by the appellants for demand of motorcycle, by which, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil and set herself ablaze. 16. So far as period of 15 days between so called marpeet and the incident is 7 concerned, it depends upon facts & circumstances of each case and there is no any straitjacket formula to decide the word “Soon before death”.s 17. In the matter of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & others reported in 2000 (5) SCC 207, in paragraph 15 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death. "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the non existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date of death. It 8 does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. 18. In the matter of Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (2) SCC 629, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “18. The above decisions of this Court laid down the proximity test i.e. there must be material to show that “soon before her death” the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with dowry”. The facts must show the existence of a proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim. “Soon before death” is a relative term and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down fixing any time-limit. The determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before death” is left to be determined by the Courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 19. Considering the totality of the evidence available on record, as also the allegations made against the accused persons, that too, just before 15 days of the date of the incident, she informed her parents and disclosed about harrassment given by the accused persons regarding demand of motorcycle, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304(B) of the IPC, in which, in any case, it cannot be said that the judgment passed by learned trial Court convicting the appellants/accused is unjustified and, therefore, this Court is also in agreement with the conviction of 9 the appellants for the offence under Section 304(B) of the IPC. 20. So far as sentence part of the impugned judgment is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the IPC. Section 304(B) of the IPC provides minimum sentence of 7 years for committing the offence. Looking to the nature of evidence, as also conduct of the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that RI for 7 years for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the IPC would be sufÏcient sentence for the appellants, therefore, while maintaining their conviction for the offence under Section 304(B) of the IPC, each of the appellants are sentenced for RI of seven years. 21. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants uder Sections 304B of IPC,sentence awarded to both the appellants are reduced from RI for 10 years to RI for 7 years. They are entitled for set-off their undergone period, which they incarcerated during trial and during pendency of the instant appeal. 22. With this modification, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 23. The trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge amita Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.04 09:50:19 +0530