Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Bachhad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 September, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:46807
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 09-07-2025
Judgment delivered on : 12-09-2025
CRA No. 252 of 2008
Deepak Bachhad, S/o Dilip Bachhad, aged about 25 years, Resident of
Village-Karathi (Sambalpur), PS Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar
Kanker (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar
Kanker (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shravan Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, 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 28.2.2008 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhanupratappur, Distt. North
Bastar Kanker in ST No.128/2007 whereby the appellant stands
convicted under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI
for seven years.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.10.2006 at 14:00
hours Chandona, wife of the accused/appellant, committed suicide by
hanging herself at her matrimonial house. At the time of incident,
accused Deepak and his father Dilip had gone to Sambalpur for
carpentry work and his mother Manokhushi to the house of her son-in-
law (Damad) with her grand-daughter. When Manokhushi returned she
found that Chandona had committed suicide by hanging herself. She
informed about the incident to the neighbourers, on which at around
17:30 hours on the same day accused Dilip informed Police Station -
Bhanupratappur.
During merg enquiry, inquest over the dead body was performed;
the dead body was sent for postmortem; sealed vaginal smear slide
and the sari used for hanging were seized. It revealed during enquiry
that the accused/appellant, his father Dilip and mother Manokhushi
used to harass and torture the deceased in connection with demand of
dowry which compelled her to commit suicide. Hence offence under
Section 304B/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the seized articles
were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completing usual
investigation, charge sheet under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed
against the accused persons followed by framing of charge accordingly
by learned trial Court which was abjured by the accused and they
prayed for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 07
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. In their defence, they
examined one witness.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted the accused persons under Section 304B/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. Challenging the said
judgment, accused Dilip and Manokhushi filed CRA No.251/2008 and
vide order dated 9.7.2025, the said appeal stood abated on account of
their death and dismissed as such.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material
available on record. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant
harassed or tortured the deceased for dowry which led her to commit
suicide. There are only general and omnibus allegations. The
prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty by
the appellant. In para 15 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court
itself recorded finding that the prosecution could not prove its allegation
regarding demand of gold ring, cycle and watch. There are number of
omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses which makes the whole case doubtful as against the present
appellant. The necessary ingredients for attracting the offence u/s
304B of IPC are missing in this case. There is no evidence to show that
soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the
appellant in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellant
deserves to be acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 31st January,
2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1076/2014
in the matter of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and
documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being
without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the
accused/appellant, his mother and father (co-accused) were charged
under Section 304B/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all
of them u/s 304B of IPC.
09. It is an admitted position in this case that deceased Chandona
was wife of accused/appellant Deepak and their marriage was
solemnized two years prior to the date of incident i.e. 31.10.2006 when
she committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house.
10. PW-1 Subal Dey, father of the deceased, states that the
accused/appellant had eloped with his daughter/deceased and
thereafter a village meeting was held and they were married. After
marriage, all the accused persons used to quarrel with the deceased in
connection with dowry in the form of cycle, watch, gold ring and ear
ring and even beat her. He states that his daughter/deceased delivered
a female child but the accused persons did not let her go to her
parental home and accused Deepak Bachhad told that only when her
father comes and tenders apology, they will send Chandona. At the
time of Durga pooja, Deepak and Chandona came to his house and
stayed for two days. Chandona told that now she would go back to
Bhanupratappur only when dowry is given to the accused. Then, he
after discussing with his wife gave Rs.1000/- to Deepak Bachhad.
In cross-examination he admits that after marriage he never
went to the house of his daughter and that her daughter never told him
anything. He admits that while living for one year in the village, his
daughter never made any complaint of the accused to him. He admits
that his daughter used to tell him about some family dispute. In para 10
he admits that after Durga pooja neither he went to the house of his
daughter nor did she come to his house. He admits that since then he
had no talk with his daughter. In para 12 he admits that as accused
Deepak had eloped with his daughter, he stopped talking to the
accused.
11. PW-2 Krishna Devi, mother of the deceased, states that in
examination-in-chief that her daughter used to complain that the
accused persons ill-treat her in connection with demand of gold ring,
cycle and watch. However, in cross-examination she admits that her
daughter and accused Deepak performed marriage after elopement
and thereafter, they were called and their marriage was solemnized as
per customary rituals. She admits that the accused persons never
made any kind of demand of dowry and that during a period of one
year her daughter never complained of demand of dowry or beating by
the accused persons. She admits that she never went to the house of
her daughter. She states that her daughter used to tell about some
family disputes. She expressed ignorance about the cause and manner
of death of her daughter.
12. PW-3 Ujjawal Devnath states that marriage of the deceased was
performed with the accused after village meeting and at that time there
was no demand of dowry made by the accused. However, after about
four months of marriage, Subal Dey informed him that the accused
persons beat his daughter for dowry, to which he advised him to make
them understand. In cross-examination he states that the above fact
was disclosed by him while giving statement to police (Ex.D/1) and if
the same is not recorded, he cannot tell reason. He admits that he
never saw the accused persons beat the deceased nor did ever hear
about it.
13. PW-4 Khagendra states that the the accused persons used to
beat Chandona for dowry. He states that there are 10-12 houses in
between the house of the accused and himself, therefore, he used to
visit their house. He heard in the house of the accused that the
deceased and her father told about beating the deceased for dowry. In
cross-examination he admits that normal family dispute would take
place between the deceased and the accused persons. He states that
Subal Dey never made any complaint to him.
14. PW-6 Niranjan Vishwas states that accused Deepak forcibly took
away Chandona to his house and thereafter, village meeting was held
and their marriage was performed. He states that no demand of dowry
was made in the meeting. However, after one year accused Deepak
Bachhad demanded ring, watch, radio, cycle, cash from the father of
the deceased. Thereafter, her father gave Rs.1000/- to the accused
Deepak. He states that he heard on 2.11.2006 that she hanged herself
and died. He admits the suggestion of the defence that he is neighbour
of the accused persons and as such, they used to visit each other's
house. He admits that there used to normal family dispute in the house
of the accused also. He admits that Chandona made no complaint
against the accused persons till they stayed in the village. He states
that whenever Chandona come to village from her matrimonial home at
Bhanupratappur, she never made any complaint against the accused.
In para 6 he states that the accused persons never made dowry
demand nor did they ever torture her in connection therewith.
15. DW-1 Anjali Sarkar, neighbour of the accused persons, states
that since marriage the deceased was suffering from stomach ache
and paralysis; the behaviour of the accused persons towards the
deceased was good; there was no dispute or quarrel between them;
she used to talk to the deceased and she never made any complaint
against the accused. She states that the accused persons never
demanded any kind of dowry even at the time of marriage.
16. Close scrutiny of the evidence of all these witnesses makes it
clear that the deceased had eloped with the accused/appellant and
after village meeting being held, their marriage was performed. The
mother, father and other witnesses have categorically stated that no
demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at the time of
village meeting or marriage.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karan Singh
(supra) held in paras 8 and 17 of its judgment as under:
"8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the
appellant's wife occurred within seven years of the marriage.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:"
113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the
question is whether a person has committed the dowry
death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry
death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B
of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is
established that soon before her death, the woman has been
subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for
attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the
deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or
harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon
before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the
presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot
be invoked.
17. ... Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. Not a
single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved
by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the
statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and
explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B.
But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes
repeatedly."
18. In light of above, if the facts and evidence emerging in the
present case are appreciated it is crystal clear that all the material
witnesses have unequivocally admitted that no demand of dowry was
raised by the accused at the time of marriage; the deceased whenever
visited her parental home never made complaint against the accused
regarding demand of dowry or any ill-treatment in connection therewith.
The witnesses have only stated that there used to be some normal
family disputes as commonly happen in other families. Not a single
incident of cruelty covered by Section 498A of IPC has been proved by
the prosecution. In order to constitute offence under Section 304B of
IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death of the woman must
be by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal
circumstances, it occurred within seven years of marriage and that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or her husband's relatives in connection with demand of
dowry. If these conditions are met, the law presumes the death to be a
dowry death. However, in this case, the prosecution though succeeded
in proving that the deceased suffered unnatural death within seven
years of marriage but utterly failed to prove that soon before her death
she was subjected to cruelty by the accused for or in connection with
demand of dowry. Rather the evidence goes to show that there was no
demand ever made by the accused. However, learned trial Court
without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
recorded a finding of guilt against the accused/appellant which being
perverse and illegal is liable to be set aside.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment in
respect of the accused/appellant is hereby set aside and he is
acquitted of the charge under Section 304B/34 of IPC.
Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in
in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 he is directed to
furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the
like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a
period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing
of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of
leave, he on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
20. 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. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the
concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
MOHD Digitally
by MOHD
signed
Judge
AKHTAR AKHTAR KHAN
Date: 2025.09.12
KHAN 15:50:19 +0530
Khan
