Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chameli Kaushik on 11 April, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No.17 of 2021
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
Chameli Kaushik, W/o Gopal Kaushik, aged about 45 years, resident of
Village Kaya, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant/State : Shri Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent : None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
11.4.2022
1. The appeal is heard on admission.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment
of acquittal dated 23.1.2020 passed by the 6 th Additional Sessions
Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.99 of 2019, whereby the
Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Case, in short, is that the Respondent/accused is mother-in-law of
deceased Mahima Kaushik. Marriage between the deceased and
the son of the Respondent/accused was solemnised in the month
of April, 2018. On 2.11.2018, Mahima Kaushik committed suicide
by hanging herself. Morgue was lodged by one Ritik Kaushik. On
the basis of morgue inquiry report, First Information Report was
registered. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed against the Respondent/accused. The Trial Court framed the
charge after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
vide the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2020 acquitted the
Respondent/accused of the charge under Section 304B IPC.
Hence this acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the
Learned Sessions Judge has committed manifest illegality in
acquitting the Respondent/accused of the charge under Section
304B IPC as all the ingredients constituting the offence have been
duly established by the prosecution and, therefore, the judgment of
acquittal deserves to be set aside.
5. We have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the
Appellant/State and perused the record of the Trial Court and gone
through the evidence adduced by the prosecution minutely.
6. In 2014 Cri.L.J. 368 (Anjanappa v. State of Karnataka), it has been
held by the Supreme Court as follows:
"9. It is well settled that an order of acquittal is not to
be set aside lightly. If the view taken by the trial Court is a
reasonably possible view, it is not to be disturbed. If two
views are possible and if the view taken by the trial Court is
a reasonably possible view, then the appellate Court should
not disturb it just because it feels that another view of the
matter is possible. However, an order of acquittal will have
to be disturbed if it is perverse. We have examined the trial
Court's order of acquittal in light of above principles. We
are of the considered opinion that the High Court was
justified in setting it aside as it is perverse."
7. In the instant case, there is no dispute on the point that the
Respondent/accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased. There
is also no dispute on the point that withing 7 years of her marriage
deceased Mahima Kaushik died in unnatural circumstances.
8. According to the Court statement of PW1 Uttarabai, mother of the
deceased, after few days of marriage, the deceased gave her
telephonic call that her mother-in-law was harassing her because
she had not given motorcycle in dowry. After 2 months of falling ill
of the deceased, she was left at her maternal house. On recovery
of her health, she was again sent to her matrimonial house.
Thereafter, it came to know that she committed suicide. PW2
Rameshwar, father of the deceased deposed that at the time of tija
festival the deceased had come to his house and at that time she
had told him that her mother-in-law was harassing her telling that
she did not know to cook food and do work. On a minute
examination of the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear
that PW2 Rameshwar has not stated anything to the extent that
soon before her death the deceased was being harassed for
demand of dowry. PW1 Uttarabai has stated about demand of
motorcycle after few days of the marriage, but she has also not
stated anything to the extent that soon before her death the
deceased was tortured for demand of motorcycle. PW3 Ritik
Kaushik, brother of the deceased also deposed that after 3 months
of the marriage the deceased had complained about demand of
motorcycle. Rest of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. From
the evidence, it is also established that husband of the deceased
had already owned a motorcycle. Therefore, the finding of the Trial
Court that the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the
death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty on account of
demand of dowry is totally based on the evidence available on
record. Furthermore, from perusal of the evidence, it also appears
that the fact regarding demand of dowry itself is suspicious.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no manifest legal error
in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge and we do not consider it a fit case where this
Court should re-appreciate the entire evidence on record or it is not
a case where the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is so
arbitrary or bears manifest error requiring interference.
9. Thus, taking into consideration the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Anjanappa case (supra) and in view of the
finding recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the acquittal appeal is
held to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed at the stage
of admission itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Gopal
