[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Krishna Sahu on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:12921-DB
Digitally signed by
RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 147 of 2019
State of Chhattisgarh, through its Station House Officer, Police Station-
Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Krishna Sahu, S/o Chatru Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village
Kanhera, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Om Parkash Sahu, S/o Sewak Ram Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o
Village- Dharampura, Sahara India Chowk, Police Station- Mana Camp,
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Girvar Sahu, S/o Om Parkash Sahu, aged about 29 years, R/o Village
Dutkarea (Khapri), presently residing at near Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank,
Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.).
4 - Chatru Ram Sahu, S/o Punauram Sahu, aged about 60 years, R/o Village-
Kanhera, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software)
For State/ Appellant : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Judgment on Board
18.03.2026
Per, Rajani Dubey, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State
against the judgment dated 03.07.2018 passed by the learned
Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in
Sessions Case No. 216/2017, whereby the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections
498-A, 304-B/34 in alternate Section 302/34 (two times) and
Section 306/34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment
and records is that a F.I.R. No. 245 was registered under Section
304B of IPC on 28.07.2017 at 19:30 wherein it was mentioned
that on 24.07.2017, a morgue intimation was lodged by
Vyasnarayan in respect of death of Kuleshwari Sahu and her 2 1/2
years old son due to hanging. The dead body panchnama was
conducted by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of the
family members of the deceased from paternal side and during
morgue proceedings, the statements of Dilip Sahu, Loknath Sahu,
Khilawan Sahu, Pankaj Sahu & Gopal Sahu (father of the
deceased) were recorded. After the marriage of the deceased, the
husband of the deceased, father-in-law, brother-in-law Om
Parkash Sahu & Girvar Sahu, in furtherance of their common
intention, used to torture Kuleshwari Sahu in connection with
demand of dowry. The postmortem of the dead body was
conducted. The deceased killed her 2 1/2 years baby child Umang
Sahu and thereafter, she herself committed suicide.
3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet
was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in
turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material
contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the
accused/respondents of charges punishable under Section 498A,
304-B/34 and alternative charges of 302/34 (two times and
Section 306/34 of IPC against which the present appeal has been
filed by the State/appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that though the
scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very much
limited but on the other hand, the appellate Court is vested with
wide powers of re appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is
the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes
to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is
unjust and perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set
aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the
accused appropriately. The learned trial Court has erred by
acquitting the respondents of the offences charged. It is
respectfully submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the conduct of the respondents proves their ill
intention and, therefore, they ought to have been convicted
appropriately by the learned trial Court. The Learned Trial Court
has failed to appreciate he facts and material available on record
and also failed to appreciate the intention of the accused while
passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. The learned trial
Court failed to appreciate that in the present case, every witness
was examined before the same and the prosecution case was
supported by it, however, on the contrary, the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused persons in all reasonable doubts. The
learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, on the
date of incident, when the injury inflicted by the accused, is not
the simple injury and the same was grievous injury with intention
to kill him and, therefore, the offence of those Sections of the IPC
is made out. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
fact that, there was clear chain of evidences and sufficient
material available on record before it while passing the impugned
judgment of acquittal of accused/respondents. He further submits
that the foregoing grounds amongst others the finding of acquittal
recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in
law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses in its
true perspective and has succumbed to the conjectures and
surmises. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is
perverse and is liable to be set aside.
5. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondents/accused
supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial
Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence
and rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. Therefore, the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any irregularity or
infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant
appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed
charges under Sections 498A/34, 304-B/34 of IPC and in
alternate Section 302/34 and 306/34 of IPC against the
accused/respondents and after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court
acquitted all respondents on this ground that the prosecution has
failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 498A, 304B,
302 and 306 of IPC.
8. It is not disputed before learned trial Court that
accused/respondent No. 1 is the husband of the deceased
(Kuleshwari Sahu) and it is further undisputed that the deceased
died on 24.07.2017 i.e., within 07 years of her marriage and the
other respondents Chatru Ram Sahu, her father in law, Om
Prakash Sahu and Girvar Shau are brother in law of the
deceased.
9. PW-12 Dr. Smt. S.D. Kanwar has conducted the postmortem of
the deceased has stated that the cause of death was asphyxia
due to hanging and gave her report vide Ex. P/10.
10. PW-01 Dilip Sahu, brother of the deceased Kuleshwari, has
deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused/respondents
subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of
dowry. He added that on the very day his sister arrived at her
marital home, she was made to clean the stool and urine of her
paralyzed mother-in-law. He further stated that the brother in law
of his sister viz. Girvar Sahu allegedly gave his sister some herbs
(Jadi Booti), after which she began vomiting blood. Thereafter, a
Panchayat meeting was convened in our village and in her in-
laws' village regarding the subjection of cruelty and harassment
upon his sister by her in-laws and in the said meeting, his sister
was counselled and sent back to her in-laws' house. He further
stated that his sister regularly observed fasts and worshipped Sai
Baba in the courtyard of her home. This reportedly annoyed her
husband, the accused Krishna Sahu, who scolded her and
allegedly vandalized the idol of Sai Baba. Thereafter, on the date
of the incident, at around 3pm, Sarpanch of his sister's in-laws'
village Kanhera has told his father that his sister Kuleshwari has
committed suicide. He further stated that he is not aware of how
his sister died, but he stated that his sister committed suicide due
to harassment. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-
examined him, then he stated that the accused Krishna Sahu did
not let his sister talk to him, even when our sister talked to us, her
husband became suspicious and broke his and my sister's phone.
He admitted this suggestion of defence that parents of the
accused Krishna Sahu were used to reside separately and he
also admitted this suggestion that he has never lodged any report
against the accused persons to the Police regarding harassment
on account of demand of dowry.
11. PW-2 Loknath Sahu, maternal grandfather of the deceased has
stated that the deceased was harassed on account of demand of
dowry by the accused persons. In paragraph 5 of his cross-
examination, he admitted that he had not filed any report against
the accused persons regarding the alleged demand for a fridge
and a vehicle as a dowry.
12. PW-3 Vyasnarayan has stated that on 24.07.2017 he was in
Cooperative Bank with the accused Chatru Ram Sahu and they
were apprised by some unknown person of their village that the
daughter in law of the accused Chatru Ram Sahu has committed
suicide at home. Thereafter, the accused Chatru Ram Sahu
reached at the spot and conveyed this witness that his daughter in
law as well as his grandson committed suicide by hanging. The
prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. In para
06 of his cross-examination he has admitted that the mother in
law of the deceased is suffering from paralysis and she is unable
to move herself. He also admitted that Kuleshwari struck her
father-in-law with a stick and, by pulling her mother-in-law's hair,
drove them out of the house. A social meeting was subsequently
convened to address this incident.
13. PW-04 Narendra Kumar has not supported the prosecution case
and he supported the suggestion of the defence that deceased
Kuleshwari used to say that she would not clean the stool of her
paralyzed mother in law. He also admitted that Kuleshwari used to
beat her father in law and her mother in law.
14. PW-05 Khilawan Sahu, uncle of the deceased has not supported
the prosecution case. The prosecution declared him hostile and
cross-examined him, then he admitted in para 05 of his cross-
examination that father of the deceased told him that after
marriage of his daughter Kuleshwari, her in-laws' used to beat his
daughter on account of demand of dowry.
15. PW-06 Yashwant Dhruv, Sarpanch of the village Kanhera has
stated that the deceased Kuleshwari along with her child has
committed suicide and he informed the police as well as family of
the deceased. He admitted this fact that several meetings took
place in respect of family disputes between the deceased
Kuleshwari Sahu and the accused Krishna Sahu. He also
admitted the suggestion of defence that a social meeting used to
take place on account of complaint relating to beating on part of
Kuleshwari to her mother in law, who was suffering from paralysis.
He also admitted that Kuleshwari had assaulted his father in law
on head with a stick.
16. PW-07 Smt. Anita Bai, mother of the deceased has stated that all
the accused persons subjected cruelty and harassment upon her
daughter Kuleshwari on account of dowry and Om Prakash Sahu,
the brother in law of the deceased used to say her that she will be
persecuted until she brings fridge and vehicle from her maternal
house. She made several allegations against the accused
persons, but in her cross-examination, she admitted that she did
not complaint to the police against the accused persons and she
also confronted her previous statement and she stated that she
had brought such facts in the notice of the police, but could not tell
the reason as to why such facts could not find place in her
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
17. PW-08 Pankaj Sahu, relative of the deceased has stated that in-
laws' of the deceased Kuleshwari used to quarrel and torture her
on account of dowry. He also admitted this suggestion in cross-
examination that quarrel were brought in his notice by the parents
of the deceased.
18. PW-16 Madhu Sen, neighbour of the deceased has stated that the
incident took place 8-9 months ago where the deceased
Kuleshwari along with her son committed suicide by hanging
themselves. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased
used to visit his house to pluck Bael leaves (bel patta) and always
spoke to everyone politely. He further mentioned that the
deceased had never lodged any complaints against the accused
persons.
19. PW-17, Bhekhram Sahu, a resident of village Kanhera, stated that
the accused, Krishna Sahu, approached him and complained that
his wife, Kuleshwari Sahu, frequently visited the police station
over trivial matters. Krishna Sahu asked him to make her
understand. Accordingly, the witness went to the police station,
where Kuleshwari Sahu had already gone to lodge a complaint.
When she came out, he spoke to her, advising her not to create
quarrels over trivial issues and further urged her to take care of
her mother-in-law, who was suffering from paralysis.
20. PW-19, Gopal Sahu, the father of the deceased has stated that all
accused persons tortured his daughter Kuleshwari on account of
demand of dowry, but he admitted that he never complained to
the Police before the incident.
21. PW-21, Manthil Yadav, neighbour of the accused has stated that
the deceased Kuleshwari and accused Krishna Sahu used to
quarrel everyday. In cross-examination he admitted that the
accused Chatru Ram Sahu told him that his daughter in law
Kuleshwari beats him besides beats his wife by pulling her hair
and he also admitted that after social meeting the father in law
and mother in law of the deceased used to reside separately.
22. DW-01 Tameshwar Sahu has supported the defence of the
accused and stated that he is the President of the "Sahu Samaj"
in the village Kanhera and accused Chatru Ram made a
complaint that his daughter in law used to beat him as well as his
wife.
23. Learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and finds that there is no evidence on
record to come to the definite conclusion that soon before her
death, the deceased Kuleshwari was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the accused persons or in connection with any
demand of dowry and also finds that there is no any evidence
regarding abetment under Section 107 of IPC proved by the
prosecution against all accused persons.
24. It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Charan
Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. the State of Uttarakhand reported
in 2023 LiveLaw SC 341 held in paras 4, 5, 10 and 11 as under:-
"4.........The presumption in regard to dowry death can
be raised in terms of Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'IEA') only if it is shown
that soon before death, such woman had been
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with the demand of dowry.
5. If the evidence led by the prosecution is examined,
no case for conviction under Section 304B or 498A IPC
can possibly be made out as none of the witnesses
have stated that there was any harassment or cruelty
to the deceased or demand of dowry immediately
before her death. The marriage took place in the year
1993, the deceased died on 22.6.1995. None of the
family members of the deceased including her father,
maternal grandmother or the maternal uncle have
stated anything about the harassment of the deceased
immediately before her death in connection with
demand of dowry. In fact, the maternal grandmother
and two maternal uncles who were living at distance of
about one farlang from the village of the deceased
were even present at the time of her cremation. They
did not raise any issue either by lodging a complaint to
the police or otherwise. In fact, it was admitted by the
maternal grandmother and the uncles of the deceased
that after the cremation, with the intervention of the
panchayat, they had collected all the dowry articles. It
was further submitted that intimation was also given to
the father of the deceased who in fact was living at a
distance of about 290 kms. However, the cremation
could not be delayed on account of waiting for the
arrival of the father of the deceased.
10. The conviction of the appellant is under Sections
3048 and 498A IPC raising presumption regarding
dowry death within seven years of marriage. To
appreciate the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, a perusal of Section 304B and
498A IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act
would be required. The same are extracted
hereinbelow:-
"304B. Dowry death- (1) Where the death
of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called "dowry death",
and such husband or relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation. For the purpose of this sub-
section, "dowry" shall have the same
meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty" means-
(a) 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) of the
woman: or
(b) 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.
113B. 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)"
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
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."
25. The learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence finds that prosecution has only proved this
fact that the deceased Kuleshwari was died within 07 years of her
marriage due to hanging, but prosecution has failed to prove
essential ingredients of murder and essential ingredients of dowry
death. Learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the
accused/respondents of the aforesaid charges levelled against
them.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024
(Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors.
Versus State of Karnataka has held in para 36 as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All
the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law,
are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles
which come into play while deciding an appeal from
acquittal could be summarized as:-
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--
inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in
a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal
in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must
specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court
for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and
the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears
to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any
patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
28. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
U.K. Raju
