Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Nepal Pradhan on 10 January, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 697 of 2018
State of Chhattigarh through the Incharge Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh
(C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
1. Nepal Pradhan S/o Shibo Pradhan Aged about 28 years,
2. Shiva Pradhan @ Shibo Pradhan S/o Damodar Pradhan, aged about 52
years,
3. Damrudhar Pradhan S/o Damodar Pradhan, aged abaout 58 years,
4. Arjun Pradhan S/o Damodar Pradhan, aged about 45 years,
5. Smt. Malti Pradhan W/o Shibo Pradhan, aged about 50 years,
6. Smt. Jayanti Pradhan @ Boby Pradhan W/o. Gopal Pradhan, aged about 25
years,
All are R/o Village Kuthurrapali, (Kuturapali), Police Station Ambabhouna,
District Bargarh (Orissa).
--Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. GA
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
10/01/2022
1. This CRMP has been filed under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 30/12/2017 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 13/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sarangarh, District Raigarh whereby the respondents have been acquitted
from the charge framed under section 306 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of Dehuti Pradhan (henceforth
'the Deceased') was solemnized with respondent No.1, Nepal Pradhan in
the year 2014. The Deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and
setting herself on fire in her parental house at village Maharajpur, PS Saria
at about 8:00 pm on 21/01/2016. During investigation, it was found that
the Deceased was subjected to mental torture and harassment as she was
suffering from chronic disease of sickling and therefore, the accused
persons wanted respondent No. 1 to marry with another girl. On this, the
Deceased got depressed and she took the extreme step of committing
suicide. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused
persons. The matter was put to trial. In order to prove his case, the
prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. The
respondents/accused persons did not adduce any defence witness and stated
in their statements that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
After appreciating the evidence, the impugned order has been passed and
the respondents have been acquitted from the charge. Hence, this CRMP.
3. Learned State counsel assailing the impugned judgment submits that the
Court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of Bodhan
Pradhan (PW3), father of the Deceased and Sumiti Pradhan (PW4), sister of
the Deceased. Both the witnesses have categorically deposed that the
respondents had tortured the deceased on account of she being suffering
from disease whereas when CT scan was done at Burla Hospital (Orissa), it
was reported that there was no ailment in the Deceased and she was
healthy. So, the respondent with ill intention and to conduct marriage of
respondent No.1 with another girl, tortured and harassed the deceased, due
to which she committed suicide. Dr. S. Lakda (PW8) who conducted
postmortem of the body of the Deceased has opined that the cause of death
was 100% burn injury sustained by the Deceased. So, the prosecution has
clearly proved its case against the accused persons, therefore, the finding of
the trial Court is liable to be set-aside. He prays to grant leave to appeal.
4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely.
5. Bodhan Pradhan (PW3), father of the Deceased has admitted in para 32 of
his cross-examination that respondent No.1 had taken the Deceased for
treatment to Catholic Mission Hospital, Bargarh (Orissa), Veer Surendra
Sai Institute of Medical Science and Research, Bulra and District
Headquarter Hospital, Bargarh (Orissa). On diagnosis it was found that the
Deceased was suffering from Sickling disease. After the marriage till the
date of incident, the Deceased had not made any complaint against the
accused persons. Prior to one year of the incident, brother of the Deceased
had brought her back to her parental house which is about 15-18 kms far.
6. Sumiti Pradhan (PW4), sister of the Deceased has deposed that on
20/01/2016 Nepal Pradhan and his mother had come to their house at
village Maharajpur.
7. Bodhan Pradhan (PW3) has admitted in para 33 that Nepal Pradhan and his
mother came to their house for taking the Deceased with them but his
daughter did not agree to go with them. After returning of the Nepal
Pradhan and his mother, the Deceased told her father that due to her
disease, her in-laws were talking to marry Nepal Pradhan with another girl,
therefore, she was too much depressed. She also told not to live with the
accused persons and was willing to commit suicide.
8. Considering the evidence that the incident took place at the parental house
of the Deceased, so it is not a case where the death of the Deceased was
clear abatement by the respondents and the Deceased was not having any
option but to end her live due to the act of the respondents/accused persons.
It is very settled law that to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC
there has to be a clear mans rea to commit the offence. The defence raised
by the accused person that the Deceased was suffering from sickling and
because of pain and suffering of such disease she might have committed
suicide, is probable. The trial court has discussed the evidence in entirety
and reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charge against the accused persons. So, this Court is satisfied that there is
no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the
accused persons. Suffice to say that the trial Court has given cogent
reasons which the learned counsel for the State has failed to discard.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where interference
of this court is required with the judgment of trial court.
9. Accordingly, the petition fails and the CRMP is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
rahul
