Smt. Uttara Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2647 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Uttara Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                           1

                        Digitally signed
                        by BHOLA
                        NATH KHATAI
                        Date:
                        2025.03.28
                        10:51:31 +0530




                                               2025:CGHC:14216-DB


                                                            NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                      CRA No. 763 of 2015

Smt. Uttara Bai W/o Yaad Ram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Bhatheli, Police Station Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari, Civil
And Rev. Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ... Appellant
                                  versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Rudari, Distt.
Dhamtari, State Chhattisgarh.
                                                  ... Respondent


For Appellant     :   Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate
For Respondent :      Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate

                            (Division Bench)

           Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
         Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal


                      Judgment On Board
                            (25.03.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 26.03.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (CG) in Sessions Trial No.38/2014, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:

               Conviction                     Sentence
      u/s 302 of the IPC      Life imprisonment and fine of
                              Rs.200/-, in default of payment of
                              fine, 3 months additional R.I.
      u/s 309 of the IPC      Simple imprisonment for 3 months

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 25.08.2014 at about 1:45 p.m., the appellant herein along with her two year old son Gagan Sahu jumped into Gangrel Dam in order to commit suicide and murder of his minor son, due to which her minor son died by drowning, thereby the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the Police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P- 12 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-15. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of minor Gagan Sahu was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. J. S. Khalsa (PW-19), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-23, according to which, cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to drowning which is ante-mortem. After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents in support of its case. The statement of accused was recorded under Section

313 of the CrPC in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, the accused in support of her defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

5. Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that though the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant jumped into the Dam along with her minor son to commit suicide and murder of her son, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.

6. Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The trial Court has convicted the appellant mainly relying upon the testimony of Yadram Sahu (PW-2), Dilip Kumar Sahu (PW-3) and Komal Banjare (PW-4). Now, we look into the statements of these witnesses.

9. Yadram Sahu (PW-2), the father of deceased Gagan Sahu and husband of the appellant, has stated that in the night of 24.08.2014, he had a quarrel with his wife i.e. the appellant over money transaction. Next day morning i.e. on the date of incident 25.08.2014, the appellant left the house saying that she was going to her maternal home but she did not go there. When he was searching for his wife, his uncle Budhram Sahu, who has not been examined, met him and took him to the hospital where the appellant was admitted and later he came to know that the appellant had taken his son to Gangrel Dam and jumped into the water due to which his son died.

10. The security personnel Dilip Kumar Sahu (PW-3) and Komal Banjare (PW-4) have stated that they were informed by some unknown person that someone had jumped into the water of Gangrel Dam, then they went to the spot and saw the head and a Saree floating in the water. They arranged a motor- boat, rescued the appellant and took her to the hospital. Both the witnesses have stated that the appellant had tied the child around her waist with a towel and the said child was dead. However, witness Manoj Sahu (PW-7) has stated that the appellant had not tied the child around her waist with any towel. As per Ex.P-10, Gagan Sahu S/o Yaadram Sahu was brought dead to District Hospital Dhamtari. This fact is also proved from the statement of Dr. Vinod Pandey,

(PW-16). None of these witnesses have stated that they had seen the appellant jumping into the Dam.

11. It is well settled law that the onus to establish the guilt of the accused in any criminal case beyond reasonable doubt is always upon the prosecution and it does not shift to the accused except in the case of plea of general exceptions or alibi and in no other circumstances. It is also a cardinal principle that a person can be deprived of his personal liberty on the basis of legal and admissible evidence, but not upon conjectures or surmises.

12. Now the question is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond doubt that the appellant jumped into Gangrel Dam along with her minor son in order to commit suicide and to commit murder of her minor son Gagan Sahu.

13. The trial Court has relied upon the statements of the husband of appellant Yadram Sahu (PW-2) and security personnel Dilip Kumar Sahu (PW-3) and Komal Banjare (PW-4) for conviction of the appellant. However, the husband of the appellant Yadram Sahu (PW-2) has only stated that on account of quarrel on the previous night, the appellant left the house along with her son on the date of incident and later he came to know that the appellant along with his son jumped into the water of Gangrel Dam due to which his son died. PW-3 & PW-4 are the security personnel who were informed by some unknown person about the floating of a body. Then they arranged a motorboat and rescued the appellant along with a child who was dead. As such, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record to establish that the appellant,

in order to commit suicide and to commit murder of her son, jumped into Gangrel Dam.

14. Furthermore, while answering to question No.64 in her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant has stated that she is innocent and on the date and time of incident, she was washing hands and face with her child and when her child fell/slipped into the deep water, to save him, she also jumped into the water. In the absence of any other hypothesis of the guilt, the possibility that the appellant jumped into the water to save her minor child cannot be ruled out. As such, it is a case of accidental death and not a case of attempt to commit suicide or to commit murder.

15. In that view of the matter, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish by leading any direct or circumstantial evidence that the appellant jumped into the water of Gangrel Dam along with her minor son to commit suicide and murder of her son. In such a situation, the impugned judgment is not found to be sustainable.

16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 & 309 of IPC, is hereby set aside/quashed and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt.

17. The appellant is on bail. She need not surrender in this case. However, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

18. This criminal appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.

19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any.

                      Sd/-                                   Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)              (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
                     Judge                              Judge

Khatai