Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 February, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:6575
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 19-12-2024
Judgment delivered on : 05-02-2025
CRA No. 205 of 2005
1. Santosh Kumar, son of Chetan Lal Dewangan, aged about 25
years,
2. Smt. Leela Bai, wife of Chetan Lal Dewangan, aged about 40
years,
3. Ku. Chitra Rekha Bai, aged about 20 years, daughter of Chetan
Lal Dewangan,
All are resident of Sevtapara, Ward No.9, Dongargaon, Distt.
Rajnandgaon (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Dongargaon,
Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
CAV Judgment
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.3.2005 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in ST
No.55/2004 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted under
Section 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI
for 10 years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer additional RI
for 03 months.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of the accused
Santosh Kumar was solemnized with Uttara Bai on 20.4.2003 and after
marriage, the accused persons started harassing and torturing her in
connection with demand of cooler, TV, clock, cow, Luna, press as
dowry, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent
illegal demands poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She was
initially taken to Primary Health Center, Dongararh for treatment from
where she was referred to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon and then she
was referred to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where on 18.9.2003 she died
during treatment. On information being given by the doctor, merg was
registered and postmortem of the deceased was conducted.
03. During the course of investigation, letters from the room of the
deceased, her necklace, gold locket, broken pieces of bangles,
matchbox, plastic can having 200 gm kerosene, burnt pieces of sari
and petticoat etc. were seized, spot map was prepared and statements
of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the usual
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the
concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed charge
under Section 304B/34 of IPC, to which the accused/appellants
abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 17
witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case,
pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they did not
examine any witness in defence.
05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence
this appeal.
06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that the
impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material
available on record. Learned trial Court seriously erred in convicting
the appellants relying upon the shaky evidence of the interested
witnesses without corroboration from any independent witness and not
considered the defence arguments and cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses in accordance with law which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice. He would submit that the accused persons did
not make any demand of dowry at the time of marriage which is clear
from the evidence of PW-4 Ram Khilawan (brother of the deceased)
and PW-6 Ram Kishunu (maternal uncle of the deceased). Learned
trial Court also did not consider the material aspect of the case that as
per PW-15 Kailash Thakur, the deceased stated that she burnt herself
by pouring kerosene as she had unbearable headache. There is
nothing on record to show that soon before her death, she was
subjected to cruelty by the appellants and as such, the main
ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 304B of IPC are
extremely missing in this case. Learned trial Court did not appreciate
the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and merely
on the basis of conjecture and surmises held the appellants guilty
under Section 304B/34 of IPC which is not legally sustainable at all.
Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the
appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh
Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454.
07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that in view of oral and
documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being
without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the
appellants were charged under Section 304B/34 of IPC and after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court
convicted them under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced as
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
10. It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that marriage of
the deceased Uttarabai was solemnized with the accused Santosh
Kumar on 20th April, 2003 and she died on 18th September, 2003. Dr.
PC Deshmukh (PW-12) conducted postmortem on the body of the
deceased and opined that cause of her death was shock as a result of
95% deep antemortem burn vide his report Ex.P/12. In cross-
examination he states that he cannot say with certainty whether death
was suicidal or homicidal. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. PC
Deshmukh (PW-12) and his report Ex.P/12 that Uttarabai died due to
burn injuries under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her
marriage.
11. PW-1 Gyanchand states that on the date of incident he was at
his home, he heard the voice of someone calling for help and when he
came out, he saw Uttarabai burning. He asked his son to bring blanket.
His son Vishnu brought blanket, however, by that time Uttarabai had
fallen down on the floor and then Vishnu covered her with blanket.
Thereafter, he (PW-1) went by bicycle to call for accused Santosh. He
states that while his son Vishnu was extinguishing the fire, Leela Bai
and Chitrekha did not extinguish fire and they were standing. In cross-
examination he admits that when Uttarabai caught fire, accused Leela
Bai and Chitrekha were inside the house and as soon as Uttarabai
came near the door, they came out of the house and when Uttarabai
entered the door, his son had already extinguished fire. He states that
after being burnt when Uttarabai asked for water, her mother-in-law
gave her water. He also admits that neither he knows about any
dispute or quarrel between Uttarabai and her in-laws nor has heard
about it.
12. PW-2 Mannulal, father of the deceased, states that when he
brought Uttarabai for Teeja to his house, she informed that the accused
demand TV, cooler and motorcycle and taunt for this. However, he
persuaded her that everything would be all right with the passage time.
He went to drop her at her matrimonial home on the third day of Teeja
and later on he came to know that she has burnt. He states that he
cannot say as to how she got burnt. In cross-examination he admits
that no demand whatsoever was made by the accused persons at the
time of marriage. He states that whenever the accused Santosh Kumar
came to his house for taking his wife/Uttarabai back, he never asked
for money or any article. He admits that there is no custom of dowry in
their community. He admits that his daughter was admitted in hospital
and got treated by the accused persons. However, he has denied the
suggestion of the defence that after death of Uttarabai he demanded
back all the articles given at the time of marriage and as the accused
persons refused, he lodged a false report against them.
13. PW-3 Lalita Bai, mother of the deceased, states that when the
deceased came for Teeja, she informed that the accused persons
harass her for dowry. However, in cross-examination she admits that
no demand was raised by the accused persons at the time of marriage.
She admits that the deceased never informed them or wrote any letter
regarding demand of dowry.
14. PW-4 Ramkhilawan, brother of the deceased, states that on the
occasion of Teeja, the deceased had come to her parental house and
informed that the accused persons demand TV, motorcycle and cooler
and harass her for this. However, in cross-examination he admits that
behaviour of accused Santosh Kumar towards Uttarabai was proper
but he used to abuse her at the instance of his family members. He
also admits that no demand was raised by the accused persons at the
time of marriage and that there is custom of dowry in their community.
He admits that at the time of Teeja when deceased came to his house,
accused Santosh also came and thereafter, Santosh came to take her
back, at that point of time also he did not discuss about demand of
dowry. He also admits that he is making statement regarding abuse
and demand of dowry by accused Santosh for the first time in the Court
and it was not disclosed to the police.
15. PW-5 Budhan Bai, sister of accused Leela, states that deceased
is her niece in relation and she did not tell her anything. After declaring
this witness hostile when the prosecution cross-examined her, she
denied all the suggestions of the prosecution.
16. PW-6 Ramkishun, relative of the deceased, states that when the
deceased came for Teeja, she informed that her mother-in-law Leela
Bai and sister-in-law Chitrekha harass and abuse her for bringing less
dowry and demand cooler, TV, cow and motorcycle and that when she
complained about it to her husband Santosh, he would not pay any
heed to it and would take the side of his mother and sister. In cross-
examination he admits that at the time of marriage no dowry was
demanded by the accused persons and that there is no custom of
dowry in their community. He states that he never discussed about
demand of dowry with accused Santosh and that he does not know as
to why she committed suicide. He also admits that he went to the
matrimonial home of the deceased with her father 2-3 times, she was
living there well and she had no problem at all. He states that after 8-
10 days of marriage he went to Dongargaon and at that time Uttarabai
did not make any complaint of the accused.
17. PW-10 Vishnu Soni states that on the date of incident he saw the
deceased burning and then he brought blanket and covered her with it.
At that time, Leela Bai and Chitrekha did not try to save her. He
admitted the suggestion that he occasionally saw Uttarabi sitting
outside the house upset.
18. The prosecution has filed three letters i.e. Ex.P/5, P/6 & P/7. PW-
13 CS Uike, Assistant Sub Inspector, seized these three letters vide
seizure memo Ex.P/8. He states that he cannot tell as to who is author
of letter Ex.P/5. It was seized from the room of the deceased. However,
he states that Chitrekha told him that letters of Ex.P/6 & P/7 are written
by accused Santosh.
19. It is clear from the statements of mother, father and brother of the
ceased that soon before her death, deceased Uttarabai was not
subjected to any cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by the
accused persons. It is also not stated by relatives of the deceased that
she was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons for dowry.
Rather it has come in the evidence that she was living well in her
matrimonial home and that after Teeja festival she went back to her
matrimonial home happily. The witnesses have admitted that no
demand whatsoever was raised by the accused persons at the time of
marriage as there is no custom of dowry in their community. Further, no
social meeting was ever held or any police complaint was ever made
against the accused persons regarding demand of dowry or
harassment to the deceased.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh
(supra) observed in para 11 of its judgment as under:
"11. The interpretation of Sections 304B and 498A IPC
came up for consideration in Baijnath's case (supra). The
opinion was summed up in paras 25 to 27 thereof, which
are extracted below:-
"25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by
Section 304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof
are:
(i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or
bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal
circumstances, and
(ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and
(iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry.
The offence under Section 498-A of the Code is
attracted qua the husband or his relative if she is
subjected to cruelty. The Explanation to this Section
exposits "cruelty" as:
(i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical), or
(ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by
her husband or his relative for or in connection with
any demand for any property or valuable security as a
demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the
common constituent of both the offences.
27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the
same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. The expression "cruelty", as
explained, contains in its expanse, apart from the
conduct of the tormentor, the consequences
precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto.
Be that as it may, cruelty or harassment by the
husband or any relative of his for or in connection with
any demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of
the two offences."
21. Keeping in view the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that though it has
been proved by the prosecution that the death of Uttarabai is by burn
injury other than in normal circumstances and she died within seven
years of her marriage, but it has utterly failed to prove that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused
persons in connection with any demand of dowry or valuable security
etc. As already discussed above, the evidence of the parents, brother
and other relatives of the deceased nowhere suggest that she was
being harassed or tortured for demand of dowry or soon before her
death she was subjected to such cruelty. However, learned trial Court
did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true
perspective and recorded an erroneous finding of guilt against the
appellants which is liable to be set aside.
22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is
hereby set aside and consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the
charge under Section 304B/34 of IPC. The appellants are reported to
be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a
period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment
be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance
and necessary action.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Digitally
MOHD signed
AKHTAR by
MOHD
KHAN AKHTAR
KHAN
Khan
