Chattisgarh High Court
Suchit Keshari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14407
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 869 of 2011
Suchit Keshari, S/o Suresh Keshari, Aged About 24 years, R/o Talkies
Road, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pendra, Distt.-Bilaspur, (C.G.)
--- Respondent
CRA No. 954 of 2011
1. Sumit Keshsari, S/o Suresh Keshari, Aged About 28 years, R/o Talkies Road, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Suresh Keshari, S/o, Sh. Laxminarayan, Aged About 52 years, R/o Talkies Road, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pendra, Distt.-Bilaspur, (C.G.)
--- Respondent CRA No. 51 of 2026 Sarita Keshari W/o Suresh Keshari Aged About 63 Years R/o Talkies Road, Pendra, Police Station - Pendra District- Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi (C.G.)
RAHUL
DEWANGAN ---Appellant
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Pendra District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
--- Respondent For Appellants-Suchit : Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate, in CRA Keshari, Sumit Keshari and Nos.869/2011 and CRA No.954/2011 Suresh Keshari For Appellant-Sarita Keshari : Mr.Sudeep Verma, Advocate in CRA No.51/2026 For State/Respondent : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer For Complainant : Mr. Kirit Lal Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Arun Khokhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA Nos.869/2011 and CRA No.954/2011, Mr.Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.51/2026, Ms.Monika Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent and Mr. Kirit Lal Patel, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Arun Khokhar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
2. Cr.A. No. 869/2011 and 954/2011 have already been admitted and are ripe for final hearing. However, Cr.A. No. 51/2026, which is listed today for admission as well as for suspension of sentence 3 and grant of bail to appellant Sarita Keshari, has not yet been formally admitted. The Sessions Trial in respect of appellant Sarita Keshari was decided by judgment dated 26.12.2025, after which she preferred the present appeal before this Court, being Cr.A. No. 51/2026.
3. Appellant, Sarita Keshari, is the mother-in-law of the deceased and did not surrender before the trial Court in the present case. However, co-accused, namely Suchit Keshari, Sumit Keshari, and Suresh Keshari, husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law of the deceased, surrendered before the trial Court, were put to trial, and were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as far back as 2011 and they are on bail during the pendency of their appeals before this Court.
4. Considering the fact that Cr.A. No. 869/2011 filed by appellant Suchit Keshari and Cr.A. No. 954/2011 filed by appellants Sumit Keshari and Suresh Keshari have already been admitted, hence, I deem it appropriate to admit this appeal as well. Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 51/2026 also stands admitted.
5. Since all the criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial i.e., Sessions Trial No. 58/2010, they were clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4
6. Criminal Appeal No.869/2011 filed by appellant-Suchit Keshari and Criminal Appeal No.954/2011 filed by appellants-Sumit Keshari & Suresh Keshari under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pendra Road District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2010, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Appellant - Suchit Keshari Conviction Sentence Under Section 498A of : Rigorous imprisonment for 03 the Indian Penal Code, years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in 1860 default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months.
Appellant - Sumit Keshari
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304-B of : Rigorous imprisonment for 07
the Indian Penal Code, years
1860
Under Section 306 of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 07 Indian Penal Code, 1860 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine 5 amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.
Under Section 498A of : Rigorous imprisonment for 03
the Indian Penal Code, years with fine of
1860 Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount,
additional rigorous
imprisonment for 09 months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently Appellant - Suresh Keshari Conviction Sentence Under Section 304B of : Rigorous imprisonment for 07 the Indian Penal Code, years 1860 Under Section 306 of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 07 Indian Penal Code, 1860 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.
Under Section 498A of : Rigorous imprisonment for 03
the Indian Penal Code, years with fine of
1860 Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount,
additional rigorous
imprisonment for 09 months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
7. Criminal Appeal No.51/2026 filed by appellant-Sarita Keshari 6 under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2010, whereby she has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Appellant - Sarita Keshari Conviction Sentence Under Section 304B/34 of : Rigorous imprisonment for the Indian Penal Code, 07 years 1860 Under Section 498A of the : Rigorous imprisonment for Indian Penal Code, 1860 01 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently CRA Nos.869/2011 and 954/2011
8. In a nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that the deceased Divya Kesari was married to accused Sumit Kesari on 06.05.2007 at Pendraroad. From the wedlock, a male child was born. It is not in dispute that co-accused Sarita Kesari (mother-in-law) was absconding during the trial. The prosecution witnesses namely 7 PW-1 Narsingh Das (father of the deceased), PW-2 Abhishek (brother), PW-3 Sweta and PW-4 Sujeet are close relatives of the deceased, whereas the accused persons are her husband, father-
in-law and brother-in-law. As per case of the prosecution, sufficient dowry articles including gold and silver ornaments were given at the time of marriage. However, after marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and a car. It is alleged that on earlier occasions, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused Sumit Kesari and Rs.60,000/- was subsequently given to the mother-in-law of the deceased. On 09.07.2010, the deceased was residing at her matrimonial house at Pendraroad. On the said date, a trivial altercation took place between the deceased and her father-in-law Suraj/Suresh Kesari regarding serving of food. In the evening at about 7:30 PM, when PW-5 Priya Kesari went to call the deceased for pooja, she found the door of the room partly closed and upon entering, saw the deceased hanging from the ceiling hook with the help of a saree. She immediately informed the family members, whereafter the deceased was brought down and found dead.
9. Accused Suresh Kesari lodged a merg intimation at Police Station Pendraroad on the same night at about 21:00 hours. The room of the deceased was sealed by the police. On the next day i.e. 8 10.07.2010, in the presence of the family members of the deceased, the room was opened and inquest proceedings were conducted. The inquest report (Ex. P-2) was prepared and the saree used for hanging was seized from the spot. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by a team of doctors, who opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging, indicating suicidal death. However, the parents and relatives of the deceased alleged that the accused persons were continuously harassing the deceased for dowry and that her death was not a simple suicide but a case of dowry death.
10. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons (except absconding accused Sarita Kesari) for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
11. After appreciating the submissions of the parties as well as the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted accused Suchit for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, with a default stipulation of 3 9 months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
12. The learned trial Court further held that, as per the prosecution, PW-1 Narsingh Kesari had incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,25,000/- in the marriage of his daughter and had subsequently paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused persons on different occasions. Taking note of the evidence, including the cross-examination of PW-3 Sweta, and considering the financial status of the parties, the trial Court convicted accused Suresh and Sumit under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. They were further convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default stipulation of 1 month's additional rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, both the accused were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, with a default stipulation of 9 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
13. Mr.Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA Nos.869/2011 and 954/2011, submits that the entire prosecution case is vitiated on account of inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the first version of accusation. It is contended that though 10 the incident occurred on 09.07.2010, the written complaint (Ex.P-
10) was submitted only on 13.07.2010 and the FIR came to be registered thereafter on 10.08.2010. Such delay, in absence of any plausible and satisfactory explanation, is fatal to the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this crucial aspect, despite it being specifically raised, and has not adjudicated upon the issue of delay in its proper perspective. It is further argued that the conduct of the complainant side is wholly unnatural and casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Despite reaching Police Station Pendraroad on 10.07.2010 and being requested repeatedly by the police, none of the family members of the deceased chose to lodge any complaint or give any statement. The explanation that they were not in a fit mental condition is neither plausible nor convincing, particularly when several close relatives were present. It is submitted that such silence, followed by a written complaint after deliberation and legal consultation, clearly indicates that the allegations are an afterthought and motivated.
14. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution story regarding demand of dowry and cruelty is full of material contradictions, omissions and improvements. The allegations have been significantly improved from the initial complaint to the statements 11 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and further in Court depositions. There are inconsistencies regarding the demand of dowry, the persons involved, and the alleged payments made. Such discrepancies go to the root of the matter and render the prosecution case unreliable. It is further contended that there is no cogent or reliable evidence to establish cruelty "soon before death", which is a sine qua non for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC. The alleged telephonic conversations have not been substantiated by any call records, and even the Investigating Officer has admitted that such material was not available. In absence of any proximate and live link between the alleged cruelty and the death, the conviction under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained.
15. Learned counsel also assails the reliance placed by the Trial Court on the observation made in map memorandum (Ex.P-2), contending that the same has been wrongly attributed to the complainant side. It is submitted that no statement was given by the complainant party at the time of preparation of the memorandum, and the Trial Court has committed a grave error in treating the said observation as evidence of dowry-related cruelty. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, ignored material contradictions, and recorded findings which are perverse and 12 contrary to the record. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and and order of sentence being unsustainable in law, deserve to be set aside.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, contend that the impugned judgment of conviction is well-founded and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is submitted that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly in cases relating to unnatural death of a married woman, where the family members are under trauma and shock. It is further contended that the prosecution has been able to establish the demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the deceased through the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses, especially the close relatives, whose evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. It is argued that minor contradictions or omissions do not go to the root of the matter and the core prosecution case remains intact.
17. Learned State counsel submits that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances and, therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted. The appellants have 13 failed to rebut the said presumption by leading any cogent evidence in their defence. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, including the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused persons, and has recorded a well-reasoned finding of guilt. Learned State Counsel also submits that, apart from the ligature mark on the neck, a contusion was found behind the left mandible of the deceased. This, according to the Counsel, indicates that all the appellants, being inmates residing in the same house, subjected the deceased to acts of torture and cruelty. It is further contended that, as a result of such sustained torture and cruelty inflicted by the appellants, the deceased was driven to commit suicide. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeals.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
19. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material available on record, framed core questions for determination, namely: whether the death of the deceased Divya Kesari was homicidal attracting Section 302 IPC; whether it constituted a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC; whether the accused had abetted her suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC; and whether cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC was established. 14
20. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has, in the first instance, rightly negatived the charge under Section 302 IPC. The medical evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-3 Dr. H.K. Tawar and the postmortem report (Ex. P-5), clearly establish that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and the nature of death was suicidal. No suggestion was even put to the doctor disputing the suicidal nature of death. In absence of any cogent evidence indicating administration of poison or strangulation, the finding of acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC calls for no interference.
21. Having held so, the learned trial Court proceeded to examine whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC stood satisfied. It is an admitted position that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 06.05.2007 and her death occurred on 09.07.2010, i.e., well within seven years of marriage. It is further established that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within the matrimonial home. Thus, the foundational facts necessary to attract the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act stand proved.
22. The crucial question, therefore, was whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry "soon before her death". In this regard, the learned trial 15 Court has relied upon the consistent testimonies of PW-5 Narsingh Das, PW-6 Abhishek, PW-8 Sweta and PW-9 Sujeet. These witnesses have categorically deposed regarding persistent demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and a car, and payment of amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on different occasions. Their evidence further reveals that even shortly prior to the death, on 21.06.2010, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid and the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home, where she continued to be harassed.
23. The learned trial Court has, in detail, considered the defence argument regarding delay in lodging the complaint and recording of statements. It has been noted that though there was delay, the same stood explained in the backdrop of the mental condition of the bereaved family. More importantly, the delay by itself does not demolish the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence of cruelty and dowry demand. The Court has also taken into account that immediately after the incident, the police had sealed the room, conducted inquest proceedings (Ex. P-2), and got the postmortem conducted by a panel of doctors, which indicates that the matter was treated seriously from the inception.
24. The defence has also attempted to discredit the prosecution case by pointing out alleged contradictions and improvements in the statements of witnesses. However, the learned trial Court has 16 rightly observed that such discrepancies are minor in nature and do not go to the root of the matter. The core allegation of persistent demand of dowry and harassment remains consistent throughout.
25. So far as the contention regarding absence of cruelty "soon before death" is concerned, the evidence on record clearly establishes proximity between the harassment and the death. The payment of Rs.60,000/- on 21.06.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the accused, coupled with the unnatural death on 09.07.2010, provide a live and proximate link. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused, which they have failed to rebut.
26. The learned trial Court has also dealt with the defence that the deceased was suffering from illness and, therefore, committed suicide. The said defence has been rightly rejected in view of the medical evidence, which does not indicate any such serious ailment immediately prior to death. On the contrary, the deceased was found to be physically healthy at the time of postmortem.
27. Insofar as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, the learned trial Court has held that the continuous harassment and dowry demands created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to take the extreme step. The conduct 17 of the accused clearly amounts to instigation within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, thereby attracting Section 306 IPC.
28. However, the learned trial Court has given benefit of doubt to accused Suchit in respect of offences under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC, as only a limited allegation was attributed to him. His conviction has been rightly confined to Section 498-A IPC.
29. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and has recorded findings which are well-reasoned and based on proper application of legal principles. The conclusions drawn are neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
30. In view of the medical evidence indicating not only the presence of a ligature mark on the neck but also a contusion behind the left mandible of the deceased, this Court finds sufficient material to infer that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the appellants, who were residing together in the same household. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, establish a clear nexus between the acts of torture and cruelty inflicted by the appellants and the unfortunate death of the deceased by suicide. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for interference with the impugned judgment is made out. 18
31. Consequently, the appeals being CRA No.869/2011 and CRA No.954/2011, being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentences awarded by the learned trial Court to appellants Suresh, Sumit and Suchit are affirmed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which they shall be taken into custody by the trial Court.
32. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by appellant Sarita Keshari being CRA No.51/2026.
33. The case arises out of the death of deceased Divya alias Goldy, who was married to accused Sumit Kesari on 06.05.2007 at Pendraroad. It is an admitted position that the deceased was the legally wedded wife of the accused. On 10.07.2010, a merg intimation (No. 38/2010) was lodged at Police Station Pendraroad by the informant Suresh Kesari, following which the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination and investigation was initiated. During the inquiry, the mother of the deceased, Smt. Nisha Kesharwani, submitted a written complaint alleging that at the time of marriage, substantial dowry including cash, gold, and clothes was given. However, after marriage, the accused persons 19 persistently demanded additional dowry of ₹2,00,000 and a car, and subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. It was further alleged that the deceased was deprived of food on several occasions, denied medical treatment, and was restricted from contacting her parental family. It was also alleged that shortly before her death, the deceased had communicated to her family members over phone that she was being harassed for dowry and that there was a threat to her life. One day prior to the incident, she reportedly expressed apprehension that the accused persons might kill her.
34. Based on the complaint and evidence collected during investigation, an FIR was registered against the accused persons under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. During trial, charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34, 306/34, and 498-A IPC. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. The prosecution examined several witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence, including post-mortem report, seizure memos, and FIR.
35. Upon conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted appellant Sarita 20 Keshari under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A IPC and sentenced her accordingly.
36. After appreciating the submissions advanced by the prosecution as well as the defence, and upon meticulous evaluation of the medical as well as ocular evidence available on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was not proved to be a case of suicide. The post-mortem report indicated circumstances inconsistent with death by hanging, such as froth emanating from the mouth, bleeding from the nose, and absence of fracture of the hyoid bone, coupled with the fact that the body had been brought down after cutting the saree. These circumstances led the Court to hold that the death had occurred in unnatural circumstances other than suicide. Consequently, the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC was held not proved. However, the Court found sufficient evidence to establish cruelty and dowry-related harassment, and accordingly convicted the accused- Sarita Keshari under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, while extending the benefit of doubt and acquitting her of the charges under Sections 302 and 306 IPC.
37. Mr.Sudeep Verma, Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.51/2026 submits that no allegation with regard to demand of dowry or cruelty was made at the earliest point of time by the 21 material witnesses, namely the father (PW-5), brother (PW-6) and sister (PW-8) of the deceased, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have failed to give any specific instances of cruelty allegedly committed upon the deceased, nor have they established any nexus between the alleged cruelty and demand of dowry, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 304-B IPC. It is also argued that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances is incomplete and fails to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submits that none of the independent witnesses from the place of occurrence i.e. Pendra, have been examined, and all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses from Jabalpur, whose testimonies are doubtful and unreliable.
38. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the defence evidence, particularly the testimony of DW-1 Smt. Kiran Jaiswal, who has categorically deposed that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were cordial and that no cruelty was ever inflicted upon the deceased. The conduct of the appellant, in taking care of the minor child of the deceased after her demise, has also been 22 completely overlooked by the Trial Court. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the appellant is an elderly lady suffering from age- related ailments, who has already remained in custody for more than three months, and further incarceration during the pendency of the appeal would cause irreparable hardship and deterioration of her health. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant be extended the benefit of doubt and be acquitted of the charges, or in the alternative, be granted appropriate relief by this Court.
39. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has successfully established the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC through cogent and consistent evidence. It is contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly disclose persistent demand of dowry and continuous harassment of the deceased soon before her death, thereby attracting the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that minor inconsistencies, if any, do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded a well-reasoned finding of conviction, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 23
40. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
41. Upon a thorough and independent re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has framed the relevant points for determination in a comprehensive manner, touching upon the nature of death of the deceased, the allegations of homicidal act, cruelty and dowry demand, as well as abetment of suicide. The findings recorded by the Trial Court on each of these issues are now required to be examined in the backdrop of the evidence led by the parties.
42. At the outset, insofar as the nature of death of deceased Divya Kesari is concerned, the evidence unequivocally establishes that her death occurred within the matrimonial home in circumstances which were not normal. The merg intimation was promptly lodged on 09.07.2010, and the prosecution has been able to establish the sequence of events leading to the discovery of the deceased. The testimony of the investigating officer (PW-10) demonstrates that upon receipt of information, necessary procedural steps including preparation of inquest, spot map and seizure proceedings were carried out in accordance with law. The room where the incident occurred was found closed and subsequently opened in presence 24 of witnesses, which further fortifies the prosecution case regarding the place and manner of occurrence.
43. The medical evidence assumes crucial significance in determining the cause and nature of death. The testimony of the doctor (PW-3), read conjointly with the post-mortem report (Ex. P/5), clearly reveals that the deceased had a ligature mark on her neck consistent with hanging. The doctor has noticed that the body was cold, there was froth mixed with blood emanating from the mouth and nose, and the internal organs were congested. Importantly, no external injuries suggestive of assault were found on the body except those attributable to hanging. The dissection of the neck structures showed compression of trachea, and the ligature mark was found to be ante-mortem. The doctor has categorically opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and the nature of death was suicidal. The time since death was assessed to be within 14 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem examination. There is no material contradiction or infirmity in the medical evidence which could discredit this opinion.
44. This Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the medical evidence to conclude that the death of the deceased was unnatural, though suicidal in nature. The contention raised by the defence that the death was not suicidal does not find support 25 from the medical or circumstantial evidence on record. The presence of a cut saree tied to the hook, the absence of signs of struggle, and the consistent medical opinion all point towards death by hanging.
45. Coming to the allegation of homicidal death under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution has failed to adduce any direct or circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused persons caused the death of the deceased by administering poison or by strangulation. The chain of circumstances is not complete so as to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
46. Similarly, with regard to the charge under Section 306 IPC, this Court finds that the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide have not been satisfactorily established. There is no cogent evidence to demonstrate instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The Trial Court has thus correctly held that the said charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
47. However, insofar as the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC are concerned, the evidence on record, particularly the 26 testimonies of the relatives of the deceased, establishes that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The fact that the death occurred within seven years of marriage and in unnatural circumstances attracts the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The defence has not been able to rebut this presumption by leading any cogent evidence.
48. The argument of the defence that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and residents of another place does not, by itself, render their testimony unreliable, especially when their statements are consistent on material particulars and are corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Minor omissions or discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in this regard.
49. Further, the defence evidence led through DW-1 has been duly considered by the Trial Court; however, the same does not inspire confidence so as to dislodge the otherwise consistent prosecution case. The plea regarding cordial relations and subsequent conduct of the accused in taking care of the child, though noted, cannot outweigh the substantive evidence establishing cruelty and dowry- related harassment.
50. In view of the medical evidence indicating not only the presence of 27 a ligature mark on the neck but also a contusion behind the left mandible of the deceased, this Court finds sufficient material to infer that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the present appellant also, who was residing together in the same household. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, establish a clear nexus between the acts of torture and cruelty inflicted by the appellant and the unfortunate death of the deceased by suicide. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for interference with the impugned judgment is made out. The conviction of appellant Sarita Keshari under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC is well-founded and calls for no interference. The acquittal under Sections 302 and 306 IPC has also been rightly granted on the basis of benefit of doubt.
51. Accordingly, the appeal being CRA No.51/2026 filed by appellant-
Sarita Keshari being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are affirmed. She is in jail. She shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial Court.
52. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
53. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the 28 concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/-
Sd/-Sd (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek/Rahul Dewangan