State Of Chhattisgarh vs Premshankar Rana
2021 Latest Caselaw 3588 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                           NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRMP No. 2323 of 2019

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Rajgarh
(C.G.).
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus

Premshankar Rana S/o Gokul Rana, Aged about 29 years R/o Kosampali
Kumharpara, Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh (C.G.).

                                                                   --Respondent

For Petitioner                :      Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, PL
For Respondent                :      None


                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                              Order on Board

09/12/2021

     Heard on admission.

1. The instant CRMP under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been preferred for grant of leave to appeal against the

judgment of acquittal dated 28/03/2019 passed in Sessions Case No.

92/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Premshankar Rana) by the Fifth

Additional Sesions Judge, Raigarh whereby the respondent/accused has

been acquitted from the charges framed under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. Counsel for the State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court is

improper, unjust and unjustified. The accused/respondent used to beat her

wife i.e. Deceased Kusum (henceforth 'the Deceased'). He also used to

harass and torture her due to which the Deceased committed suicide by

hanging herself in her house at Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh at about

9:00 am on 16/06/2018. So, he prays to grant leave to appeal against the

impugned judgment.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the statement

recorded by the prosecution and other record minutely.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

as many as 13 witnesses namely Mandakini Chakravarty (PW1), mother of

the deceased, Narmada Kumbhkaar (PW2), relative of the deceased,

Laxman Chakravarty (PW3), brother of the deceased, Mehatar (PW4),

father of the deceased, Basantirani (PW5), sister-in-law of the deceased,

Ramkumari (PW6), sister of the deceased, Saran Bhoi (PW7), Rajendra

Prasad Kumbhkaar (PW8), brother-in-law of the deceased, Aavdhut

Rathiya (PW9), Daulat Ram (PW10), Dr. Prakash Kumar Chetwani

(PW11) who conducted postmortem of deceased on 17/06/2018 vide Ex.P-

18, SI Jawaharlal Rathore (PW12) and ASI Sashidev (PW13) who recorded

merg intimation vide Ex.p-16.

5. Mehatar (PW4), father of the deceased in para 14 of his cross-examination

has stated that at the time of death of his daughter, he had not gone to her

house so he did not know under what circumstance the deceased died. The

deceased was married to the accused/respondent 7-8 years prior to the

incident. It has been alleged by this witness that the accused/respondent

after consuming liquor used to beat her daughter. Even prior to 15 days of

the incident, the deceased made a call over phone and said that the

appellant had beaten her and she requested her father to bring her back.

This witness further states that when they went to the house of the accused/

respondent, mother-in-law of the deceased told them the quarrel between

husband and wife was usual and they would be fine and together after some

time. Therefore, he did not bring the deceased with him.

6. Counsel for the prosecution is not able to demonstrate any evidence relating

to abetment for committing suicide. There is no evidence that the

accused/respondent instigated the deceased or intentionally aided by an act

or illegal omission or anyway conspired for abetment of suicide, so only

because there was no cordial relation between the husband and wife and the

appellant used to beat his wife after consuming liquor, it cannot be said that

the appellant wanted his wife to commit suicide.

7. So this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properly appreciated the

evidence and rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the

charges against the accused/respondent. No substantial ground is made by

the prosecution to grant leave to appeal.

8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any substance in this petition to grant

leave to appeal. The CRMP is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

rahul