Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kewal Das Panika on 21 March, 2025
1
.
2025:CGHC:13525-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
ARPAN
ARPAN SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.03.22
17:09:39
+0530
ACQA No. 37 of 2017
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Kewal Das Panika, S/o Shri Dafe Das, Aged About 45 Years R/o
Dumarmuda, Police Station Darri, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Maan Kunwar, W/o Shri Kewal Das Panika, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Dumarmuda, Police Station Darri, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L.
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Gajanand Ratre, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
21.03.2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/ State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning
the legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 20.07.2016
passed by the Additional Judge to the Katghora Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Distt.-Korba in Sessions
Trial No.13/2012, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted
from the commission of the offence punishable under Section
304-B/34 and alternatively under Section 302/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of
the deceased Uttara Kumari was solemnized with one Narendra
Das on 19.04.2010, and after the solemnization of her marriage,
the father-in-law and in mother-in-law, the respondents herein,
started harassing her mentally as well as physically, as she
brought the dowry below their expectations. It is alleged further
that on 20.02.2011 at about 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM, the father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased have beaten her and after
pouring kerosene oil ablazed her, owing to which, she suffered
burn injuries to the extent of 80% and was admitted into the
hospital at NTPC Darri, where she was examined by Dr. Baburai
Soren and her dying declaration was recorded on the same day
vide (Ex.P/13) and looking to her critical condition, she was
shifted to CIMS hospital, Bilaspur for her better treatment but,
during the course of treatment, she died on 24.02.2011. On
account of her death, an information was furnished by ward-boy of
the said hospital to City Kotwali outpost CIMS on 25.02.2011 vide
(Ex.P/10) and after holding the merg inquiry, an FIR (Ex.P/17)
was registered against the respondents on 09.08.2011 with regard
to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 and, vide
(Ex.P/6) cloths of the deceased with smell of kerosene oil, a
Jerican and matchbox were recovered from the spot in presence
of two witnesses, namely, Shatrughan (PW/4) and Jairam (PW/5).
Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/2, and was
sent for autopsy and according to the post-mortem report
(Ex.P/5), the cause of death was found to be cardio respiratory
failure as a result of shock due to burn injuries.
3. After completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Katghora, in connection with Crime
No.142/2011 against the respondents for the offence punishable
under Sections 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and,
the matter was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions,
where the charges have been framed against the respondents
under Section 304-B/34 IPC and/ or under Section 302/34 of IPC
and, the charges so framed were denied by them and claimed to
be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the
prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and has
exhibited 24 documents, while none was examined by the
respondents in their defence.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the
prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since the deceased was
not found to be in a fit mental condition, her dying declaration
recorded on 20.02.2011 vide (Ex.P/13) cannot be held to be relied
upon and by observing further that since none of the prosecution
witness have found to be consistent pertaining to the alleged
allegation of demand of dowry, therefore, the respondents cannot
be held liable for the commission of the alleged offence and,
accordingly they have been acquitted and, being aggrieved, the
instant appeal has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ State submits that
the finding of the Trial Court holding that the respondents are not
the authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the
materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by
the prosecution, particularly the statement of the deceasd-Uttara
Kumari and her parents, have not been scanned in its proper
manner and thereby erred in acquitting them, as such.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents have supported the impugned judgment of acquittal
as passed by the Trial Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the entire record carefully.
9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the
deceased-Uttara Kumari was solemnized with one Narendra Das
on 19.04.2010 and, it was alleged by the prosecution that she was
harassed and maltreated by the father-in-law and mother-in-law,
as she did not bring the sufficient dowry as per their expectations,
owing to which, on the fateful day, i.e. 20.02.2011, she was
assaulted by them and thereafter, set her ablazed, by pouring the
kerosene oil. It appears further that owing to the alleged incident
she was initially admitted into the hospital at NTPC, Darri, where
she was treated by Dr. Baburai Soren (PW/7) and looking to her
critical condition, she was shifted to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur
where during the course of her treatment, she died on 24.02.2011.
10. It appears further that when the deceased was admitted into the
NTPC Hospital at Darri, her dying declaration (Ex.P/13) was
recorded on the same day by the Executive Magistrate/ Tahsildar
(PW/11). In her dying declaration, it was stated by her that on the
said fateful day, her husband had gone to attend the call of
nature, while her brother-in-law (Devar) Jitendra and her in-laws
were at home. Further of her said statement would show that her
father-in-law and mother-in-law have quarreled with her on
account of dowry and poured the kerosene oil upon her and the
father-in-law has ablazed her while using the matchbox and when
she shouted her husband, brother-in-law (Devar) and all have
came and took her to the hospital. She stated further that when
she was burnt, the father-in-law and mother-in-law alone were
there, who have earlier also used to quarrel with her on account of
the demand of dowry, while her husband has never quarreled with
her. The alleged statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by
Executive Magistrate/ Tahsildar (PW/11), who stated that after
knowing about the condition of the deceased from the Medical
Officer, he recorded the alleged statement (Ex.P/13) as per her
statement and, who was found to be mentally fit at the relevant
point of time. It, however, appears that when her dying declaration
was recorded, no medical certificate was attached with it, showing
that she was in a fit mental condition to state, nor any explanation
has been offered to his effect as to why it was not obtained before
recording her said statement (Ex.P/13). It is to be seen further that
when she was admitted into the NTPC Hospital at Darri, she was
examined by the Medical Officer, namely, Baburai Soren (PW/7)
who conducted her MLC vide (Ex.P/8A) and, a bare perusal of
his statement would show that, if the person is burnt to the extent
of 80%, he would then be not in a position to state and his
capacity to understand the things would come to an end and,
would be murmuring senselessly and the same was the condition
of the deceasd-Uttara Kumari and that was the reason why he
referred her for better treatment. It is to be seen further, at this
juncture, the statement of Balram Prasad Sahu (PW/18), who was
the Assistant Sub-Inspector and according to him, the deceased
was not in a position to state anything and therefore, he informed
the Police Station Darri, vide Ex.P/24, that she was burnt while
cooking the food in "Chulha" and the said fact was mentioned in
the said report as was narrated by her in-laws.
11. What is, therefore, reflected, that she was not in a fit mental
condition to state and therefore, her dying declaration (Ex.P/13)
was rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court and we, accordingly
affirmed the same.
12. Insofar as, the allegation of demand of dowry is concerned, it
appears from the evidence of her father, namely, Premdas,
(PW/1), particularly Para-6, that his daughter had never informed
him, that her in-laws have ever demanded the dowry and stated
suo motu that she informed the alleged fact to her mother and the
neighborhood. It reveals further from his testimony that they have
not lodged any report against the Respondents/ accused
regarding the alleged demand of dowry.
13. Sakuntala (PW/2), the mother of the deceased has stated that she
received the information from her daughter that her in-laws used
to demand of dowry and owing to which she was maltreated by
them, as she came with small utensils and would keep her only
when she bring some more dowry. Pukhrajbai (PW/3) was the
grandmother of the deceased and, it was stated by her that when
she met the deceased in the hospital, she informed her that
because of demand of dowry, she was burnt by the respondents/
in-laws, and stated further that when she was asked who burnt
her, it was then replied by her that the father-in-law has poured
the kerosene oil upon her, while mother-in-law has ablazed her
while using the matchbox, but, the said version was, however, not
found placed in her said dying declaration (Ex.P/13), where she
has stated that the father-in-law has burnt her with the matchbox
and, not the mother-in-law. That apart, Sukhmat Bai (PW/10), who
was the maternal grandmother of the deceased has, however,
stated that the deceased was living separately from her in-laws
and was living happily with her husband.
14. In view of above, it is, thus, evident that no cogent and reliable
evidence has been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that she
was assaulted or maltreated by the respondents with regard to
demand of dowry. It is to be seen further that although, it was
stated by the deceased in her said dying declaration (Ex.P/13)
that her in-laws have poured the kerosene oil upon her, but, when
she was examined by Dr. Baburai Soren (PW/7) on the date of the
alleged incident itself, no smell of kerosene oil was, however,
found by him, nor was found to be depicted from the MLC Report
(Ex.P/8A) of the deceased. Although, there was the smell of
kerosene oil in the cloths of the deceased, when that was
recovered from the spot vide (Ex.P/6) in presence of two
witnesses namely Shatrunghan (PW/4) and Jairam (PW/5), but
both these witnesses have, however, turned hostile without
supporting the alleged recovery, nor the same was sent for the
chemical examination in order to ascertain the said fact and the
Trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in
disbelieving the alleged allegation of the prosecution as well, so
as to, call for any interference in this appeal.
15. In view of the aforesaid background, the appeal, being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Arpan
