Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rajesh Kumar on 15 September, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA BHOLA
NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.09.17
14:15:43
+0530
2025:CGHC:47110
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 956 of 2024
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District
Koriya Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Shobhnath Sahu Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Madhnee Sahu W/o Shobhnath Sahu Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh.
3 - Pushpa Sahu W/o Suresh Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh.
4 - Suresh Sahu S/o Shobhnath Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh.
5 - Shobhnath Sahu S/o Parmeshwar Ram Aged About 56 Years
R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Patna, Koriya Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For State/Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
15/09/2025
1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment
dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (CG) in
Sessions Case No.13/2017 whereby the respondents have
been acquitted of the charges under sections 498A, 306/34
of IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the father of the
deceased (PW-4) lodged a written complaint on 16.07.2016,
alleging that his daughter, Pinky (the deceased), was
married to respondent No.1, Rajesh Kumar, in 1998.
Initially, she was treated well, but later she was allegedly
harassed and assaulted by her in-laws for not bringing
sufficient dowry, including a motorcycle. The deceased used
to narrate these incidents to her family members when she
visited them. Respondent No. 5 (the father of respondent
No.1) told the complainant, Ramsurat Sahu (PW-4), and his
wife, Bhagwati Sahu (PW-5), that the deceased had refused
to file a false complaint against a person named Gajanand,
and therefore they should take her back. Consequently, the
complainant took the deceased back with him. Following
this, the deceased reported the matter to the Department of
Women and Child Development, based on which the case
was sent to Court. After a court settlement on 08.07.2016,
Respondents No.1 and his family took the deceased back to
their house. On 11.07.2016, the complainant came to know
that the deceased was found dead in a well. The allegation
against the respondents is that they were harassing the
deceased for dowry, thereby abetting her to commit suicide,
which ultimately led her to commit suicide by drowning in
a well. Based on the written complaint, FIR (Ex.P-7) was
lodged and charges under Sections 498A, 306/34 of IPC
r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were
framed against the accused/respondents.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as
many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents and
articles A-1 to A-7. The statements of the
accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of
CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing
against them in the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned
judgment acquitted the accused/respondents of the
aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court has not
appreciated the Merg lodged by the accused/husband
Rajesh Kumar stating illicit relationship of the
deceased/wife Pinky. He submits that the prosecution
witnesses have clearly stated that the accused persons
subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for
demand of dowry thereby abetted her to commit suicide,
which ultimately led her to commit suicide by drowning in
a well, which could not be rebutted, yet the trial Court,
without properly appreciating the evidence come on record,
passed the judgment of acquittal, which is not sustainable
in the eye of law. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded
by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in
law, and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned judgment and submits that the trial Court has
passed the judgment after appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence, which does not call for any
interference.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of learned trial Court.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, applying the law governing the
scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, in the
case of "State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram" reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the
view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse,
it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of
acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal,
merely because the Appellate Court finds the way
of conviction to be more probable. The interference
would be warranted only if the view taken is not
possible at all."
9. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is an undisputed
fact that the deceased Pinky was married to respondent
No.1 Rajesh in the year 1998. They have one son and two
daughters. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased
committed suicide by drowning in a well on 11.07.2016 i.e.
after about 18 years of marriage.
10. The allegation against the respondents is that they
subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for
dowry which ultimately led her to commit suicide by
drowning in a well. The main witnesses regarding abetment
to suicide are father of the deceased, Ramsurat Sahu (PW-
4), mother Bhagwati Sahu (PW-5) and brother Jagdeep
Kumar Sahu (PW-3), who have stated that after 3 years of
marriage of the deceased, the respondents subjected her to
cruelty for demand of dowry. While discussing in detail in
paragraphs 39 to 42 the trial Court found that no specific
date and time has been stated by any of the witnesses.
Admittedly there is no police complaint in this regard for a
married life of around 18 years. No specific role has been
assigned to any of the accused as to who did what. General
allegation of committing cruelty has been levelled against
all the accused persons which is not liable to be believed.
There are contradictions in the statements of PW-3, PW-4 &
PW-5. Daughter Manju (PW-6) and son Devendra Kumar
Sahu (PW-8) of the deceased have denied any ill-treatment
of the deceased by the accused persons. They have stated
that their mother was living happily with her in-laws
without any problem. They have also denied that the
deceased was being pressured to lodge a false complaint
against Gajanand. The trial Court elaborately discussing
the entire evidence recorded a finding of acquittal. After
reassessing the entire evidence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no reason to draw a
contrary finding.
11. So far as the Merg made by the husband stating illicit
relationship of the deceased is concerned, it does not fall in
the category of evidence as no witness has stated so before
the Court and the Merg recorded before the police is not
admissible as substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, by
accepting this against the accused, it cannot be presumed
against them that they might have instigated the deceased
for this reason.
12. In the light of the principle of law laid down by their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned
judgment and considering the entire facts and evidence of
the case, this Court finds that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial
court. Therefore, there is no need for any interference in it.
13. Thus, this appeal against the acquittal is dismissed.
14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the record
be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for
necessary information & action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
