[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sarita Keshari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14407
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 869 of 2011
Suchit Keshari, S/o Suresh Keshari, Aged About 24 years, R/o Talkies
Road, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pendra, Distt.-Bilaspur, (C.G.)
--- Respondent
CRA No. 954 of 2011
1. Sumit Keshsari, S/o Suresh Keshari, Aged About 28 years, R/o
Talkies Road, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Suresh Keshari, S/o, Sh. Laxminarayan, Aged About 52 years, R/o
Talkies Road, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
---Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pendra, Distt.-Bilaspur, (C.G.)
--- Respondent
Sarita Keshari W/o Suresh Keshari Aged About 63 Years R/o Talkies
Road, Pendra, Police Station - Pendra District- Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi (C.G.)
RAHUL
DEWANGAN ---Appellant
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Pendra District-
Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Appellants-Suchit : Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate, in CRA
Keshari, Sumit Keshari and Nos.869/2011 and CRA No.954/2011
Suresh Keshari
For Appellant-Sarita Keshari : Mr.Sudeep Verma, Advocate in CRA
For State/Respondent : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer
For Complainant : Mr. Kirit Lal Patel, Advocate, on behalf of
Mr. Arun Khokhar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Judgment on Board
25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellants in
CRA Nos.869/2011 and CRA No.954/2011, Mr.Sudeep Verma,
learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.51/2026, Ms.Monika
Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent and
Mr. Kirit Lal Patel, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Arun Khokhar,
learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
2. Cr.A. No. 869/2011 and 954/2011 have already been admitted and
are ripe for final hearing. However, Cr.A. No. 51/2026, which is
listed today for admission as well as for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to appellant Sarita Keshari, has not yet been
formally admitted. The Sessions Trial in respect of appellant Sarita
Keshari was decided by judgment dated 26.12.2025, after which
she preferred the present appeal before this Court, being Cr.A. No.
51/2026.
3. Appellant, Sarita Keshari, is the mother-in-law of the deceased and
did not surrender before the trial Court in the present case.
However, co-accused, namely Suchit Keshari, Sumit Keshari, and
Suresh Keshari, husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law of the
deceased, surrendered before the trial Court, were put to trial, and
were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as far
back as 2011 and they are on bail during the pendency of their
appeals before this Court.
4. Considering the fact that Cr.A. No. 869/2011 filed by appellant
Suchit Keshari and Cr.A. No. 954/2011 filed by appellants Sumit
Keshari and Suresh Keshari have already been admitted, hence, I
deem it appropriate to admit this appeal as well. Accordingly, Cr.A.
No. 51/2026 also stands admitted.
5. Since all the criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial
i.e., Sessions Trial No. 58/2010, they were clubbed together, heard
analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
6. Criminal Appeal No.869/2011 filed by appellant-Suchit Keshari and
Criminal Appeal No.954/2011 filed by appellants-Sumit Keshari &
Suresh Keshari under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') are directed against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Pendra Road District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.58
of 2010, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Appellant - Suchit Keshari
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 498A of : Rigorous imprisonment for 03
the Indian Penal Code, years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in
1860 default of payment of fine
amount, additional rigorous
imprisonment for 03 months.
Appellant - Sumit Keshari
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304-B of : Rigorous imprisonment for 07
the Indian Penal Code, years
Under Section 306 of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 07
Indian Penal Code, 1860 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default of payment of fine
amount, additional rigorous
imprisonment for 01 month.
Under Section 498A of : Rigorous imprisonment for 03
the Indian Penal Code, years with fine of
1860 Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount,
additional rigorous
imprisonment for 09 months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
Appellant - Suresh Keshari
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304B of : Rigorous imprisonment for 07
the Indian Penal Code, years
Under Section 306 of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 07
Indian Penal Code, 1860 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default of payment of fine
amount, additional rigorous
imprisonment for 01 month.
Under Section 498A of : Rigorous imprisonment for 03
the Indian Penal Code, years with fine of
1860 Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount,
additional rigorous
imprisonment for 09 months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
7. Criminal Appeal No.51/2026 filed by appellant-Sarita Keshari
under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short, 'BNSS') are directed against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2025
passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra
Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2010,
whereby she has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Appellant - Sarita Keshari
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304B/34 of : Rigorous imprisonment for
the Indian Penal Code, 07 years
Under Section 498A of the : Rigorous imprisonment for
Indian Penal Code, 1860 01 year with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount,
additional rigorous
imprisonment for 03
months.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently
CRA Nos.869/2011 and 954/2011
8. In a nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that the deceased
Divya Kesari was married to accused Sumit Kesari on 06.05.2007 at
Pendraroad. From the wedlock, a male child was born. It is not in
dispute that co-accused Sarita Kesari (mother-in-law) was
absconding during the trial. The prosecution witnesses namely
PW-1 Narsingh Das (father of the deceased), PW-2 Abhishek
(brother), PW-3 Sweta and PW-4 Sujeet are close relatives of the
deceased, whereas the accused persons are her husband, father-
in-law and brother-in-law. As per case of the prosecution, sufficient
dowry articles including gold and silver ornaments were given at
the time of marriage. However, after marriage, the deceased was
allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of
demand of dowry to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and a car. It is
alleged that on earlier occasions, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was
paid to accused Sumit Kesari and Rs.60,000/- was subsequently
given to the mother-in-law of the deceased. On 09.07.2010, the
deceased was residing at her matrimonial house at Pendraroad.
On the said date, a trivial altercation took place between the
deceased and her father-in-law Suraj/Suresh Kesari regarding
serving of food. In the evening at about 7:30 PM, when PW-5 Priya
Kesari went to call the deceased for pooja, she found the door of
the room partly closed and upon entering, saw the deceased
hanging from the ceiling hook with the help of a saree. She
immediately informed the family members, whereafter the
deceased was brought down and found dead.
9. Accused Suresh Kesari lodged a merg intimation at Police Station
Pendraroad on the same night at about 21:00 hours. The room of
the deceased was sealed by the police. On the next day i.e.
10.07.2010, in the presence of the family members of the
deceased, the room was opened and inquest proceedings were
conducted. The inquest report (Ex. P-2) was prepared and the
saree used for hanging was seized from the spot. The dead body
of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was
conducted by a team of doctors, who opined that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to hanging, indicating suicidal death.
However, the parents and relatives of the deceased alleged that
the accused persons were continuously harassing the deceased
for dowry and that her death was not a simple suicide but a case
of dowry death.
10. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet
against the accused persons (except absconding accused Sarita
Kesari) for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Pendraroad, from where the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions for trial.
11. After appreciating the submissions of the parties as well as the
material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted
accused Suchit for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, with a default stipulation of 3
months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
12. The learned trial Court further held that, as per the prosecution,
PW-1 Narsingh Kesari had incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,25,000/-
in the marriage of his daughter and had subsequently paid
Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused persons on different occasions.
Taking note of the evidence, including the cross-examination of
PW-3 Sweta, and considering the financial status of the parties,
the trial Court convicted accused Suresh and Sumit under Section
304-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years. They were further convicted under
Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 7 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default
stipulation of 1 month's additional rigorous imprisonment.
Additionally, both the accused were convicted under Section 498-A
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
each along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, with a default
stipulation of 9 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
13. Mr.Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA
Nos.869/2011 and 954/2011, submits that the entire prosecution
case is vitiated on account of inordinate and unexplained delay in
lodging the first version of accusation. It is contended that though
the incident occurred on 09.07.2010, the written complaint (Ex.P-
10) was submitted only on 13.07.2010 and the FIR came to be
registered thereafter on 10.08.2010. Such delay, in absence of any
plausible and satisfactory explanation, is fatal to the prosecution
case. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate this crucial aspect, despite it being specifically raised,
and has not adjudicated upon the issue of delay in its proper
perspective. It is further argued that the conduct of the
complainant side is wholly unnatural and casts serious doubt on
the veracity of the prosecution story. Despite reaching Police
Station Pendraroad on 10.07.2010 and being requested repeatedly
by the police, none of the family members of the deceased chose
to lodge any complaint or give any statement. The explanation
that they were not in a fit mental condition is neither plausible nor
convincing, particularly when several close relatives were present.
It is submitted that such silence, followed by a written complaint
after deliberation and legal consultation, clearly indicates that the
allegations are an afterthought and motivated.
14. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution story regarding
demand of dowry and cruelty is full of material contradictions,
omissions and improvements. The allegations have been
significantly improved from the initial complaint to the statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and further in Court depositions. There
are inconsistencies regarding the demand of dowry, the persons
involved, and the alleged payments made. Such discrepancies go
to the root of the matter and render the prosecution case
unreliable. It is further contended that there is no cogent or
reliable evidence to establish cruelty "soon before death", which is
a sine qua non for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC.
The alleged telephonic conversations have not been substantiated
by any call records, and even the Investigating Officer has
admitted that such material was not available. In absence of any
proximate and live link between the alleged cruelty and the death,
the conviction under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained.
15. Learned counsel also assails the reliance placed by the Trial Court
on the observation made in map memorandum (Ex.P-2),
contending that the same has been wrongly attributed to the
complainant side. It is submitted that no statement was given by
the complainant party at the time of preparation of the
memorandum, and the Trial Court has committed a grave error in
treating the said observation as evidence of dowry-related cruelty.
Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, ignored material
contradictions, and recorded findings which are perverse and
contrary to the record. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned
judgment of conviction and and order of sentence being
unsustainable in law, deserve to be set aside.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as
learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, contend that
the impugned judgment of conviction is well-founded and based
on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is submitted that
mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case,
particularly in cases relating to unnatural death of a married
woman, where the family members are under trauma and shock.
It is further contended that the prosecution has been able to
establish the demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the
deceased through the consistent testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, especially the close relatives, whose evidence cannot be
discarded merely on the ground of relationship. It is argued that
minor contradictions or omissions do not go to the root of the
matter and the core prosecution case remains intact.
17. Learned State counsel submits that the death of the deceased
occurred within seven years of marriage under unnatural
circumstances and, therefore, the statutory presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted. The appellants have
failed to rebut the said presumption by leading any cogent
evidence in their defence. It is also argued that the learned Trial
Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, including the
surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused persons,
and has recorded a well-reasoned finding of guilt. Learned State
Counsel also submits that, apart from the ligature mark on the
neck, a contusion was found behind the left mandible of the
deceased. This, according to the Counsel, indicates that all the
appellants, being inmates residing in the same house, subjected
the deceased to acts of torture and cruelty. It is further contended
that, as a result of such sustained torture and cruelty inflicted by
the appellants, the deceased was driven to commit suicide.
Therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeals.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the
original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
19. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material available on
record, framed core questions for determination, namely: whether
the death of the deceased Divya Kesari was homicidal attracting
Section 302 IPC; whether it constituted a dowry death within the
meaning of Section 304-B IPC; whether the accused had abetted
her suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC; and whether cruelty
within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC was established.
20. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has, in the
first instance, rightly negatived the charge under Section 302 IPC.
The medical evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-3 Dr. H.K.
Tawar and the postmortem report (Ex. P-5), clearly establish that
the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and the nature of
death was suicidal. No suggestion was even put to the doctor
disputing the suicidal nature of death. In absence of any cogent
evidence indicating administration of poison or strangulation, the
finding of acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC calls for no
interference.
21. Having held so, the learned trial Court proceeded to examine
whether the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC stood satisfied. It is
an admitted position that the marriage of the deceased was
solemnized on 06.05.2007 and her death occurred on 09.07.2010,
i.e., well within seven years of marriage. It is further established
that the death occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances within the matrimonial home. Thus, the
foundational facts necessary to attract the presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act stand proved.
22. The crucial question, therefore, was whether the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of
dowry "soon before her death". In this regard, the learned trial
Court has relied upon the consistent testimonies of PW-5 Narsingh
Das, PW-6 Abhishek, PW-8 Sweta and PW-9 Sujeet. These
witnesses have categorically deposed regarding persistent
demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and a car, and payment of amounts of
Rs.50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on different occasions. Their evidence
further reveals that even shortly prior to the death, on 21.06.2010,
an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid and the deceased was sent to
her matrimonial home, where she continued to be harassed.
23. The learned trial Court has, in detail, considered the defence
argument regarding delay in lodging the complaint and recording
of statements. It has been noted that though there was delay, the
same stood explained in the backdrop of the mental condition of
the bereaved family. More importantly, the delay by itself does not
demolish the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence of cruelty
and dowry demand. The Court has also taken into account that
immediately after the incident, the police had sealed the room,
conducted inquest proceedings (Ex. P-2), and got the postmortem
conducted by a panel of doctors, which indicates that the matter
was treated seriously from the inception.
24. The defence has also attempted to discredit the prosecution case
by pointing out alleged contradictions and improvements in the
statements of witnesses. However, the learned trial Court has
rightly observed that such discrepancies are minor in nature and
do not go to the root of the matter. The core allegation of
persistent demand of dowry and harassment remains consistent
throughout.
25. So far as the contention regarding absence of cruelty "soon before
death" is concerned, the evidence on record clearly establishes
proximity between the harassment and the death. The payment of
Rs.60,000/- on 21.06.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the
accused, coupled with the unnatural death on 09.07.2010, provide
a live and proximate link. In such circumstances, the presumption
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the
accused, which they have failed to rebut.
26. The learned trial Court has also dealt with the defence that the
deceased was suffering from illness and, therefore, committed
suicide. The said defence has been rightly rejected in view of the
medical evidence, which does not indicate any such serious
ailment immediately prior to death. On the contrary, the deceased
was found to be physically healthy at the time of postmortem.
27. Insofar as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, the
learned trial Court has held that the continuous harassment and
dowry demands created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no option but to take the extreme step. The conduct
of the accused clearly amounts to instigation within the meaning
of Section 107 IPC, thereby attracting Section 306 IPC.
28. However, the learned trial Court has given benefit of doubt to
accused Suchit in respect of offences under Sections 304-B and
306 IPC, as only a limited allegation was attributed to him. His
conviction has been rightly confined to Section 498-A IPC.
29. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has meticulously
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and has recorded
findings which are well-reasoned and based on proper application
of legal principles. The conclusions drawn are neither perverse nor
contrary to the record.
30. In view of the medical evidence indicating not only the presence of
a ligature mark on the neck but also a contusion behind the left
mandible of the deceased, this Court finds sufficient material to
infer that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental
cruelty by the appellants, who were residing together in the same
household. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, establish a
clear nexus between the acts of torture and cruelty inflicted by the
appellants and the unfortunate death of the deceased by suicide.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground
for interference with the impugned judgment is made out.
31. Consequently, the appeals being CRA No.869/2011 and CRA
No.954/2011, being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby
dismissed. The conviction and sentences awarded by the learned
trial Court to appellants Suresh, Sumit and Suchit are affirmed.
They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
discharged. They shall surrender forthwith before the concerned
trial Court for serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial
Court, failing which they shall be taken into custody by the trial
Court.
32. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by appellant Sarita
Keshari being CRA No.51/2026.
33. The case arises out of the death of deceased Divya alias Goldy,
who was married to accused Sumit Kesari on 06.05.2007 at
Pendraroad. It is an admitted position that the deceased was the
legally wedded wife of the accused. On 10.07.2010, a merg
intimation (No. 38/2010) was lodged at Police Station Pendraroad
by the informant Suresh Kesari, following which the dead body
was subjected to post-mortem examination and investigation was
initiated. During the inquiry, the mother of the deceased, Smt.
Nisha Kesharwani, submitted a written complaint alleging that at
the time of marriage, substantial dowry including cash, gold, and
clothes was given. However, after marriage, the accused persons
persistently demanded additional dowry of ₹2,00,000 and a car,
and subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment. It was
further alleged that the deceased was deprived of food on several
occasions, denied medical treatment, and was restricted from
contacting her parental family. It was also alleged that shortly
before her death, the deceased had communicated to her family
members over phone that she was being harassed for dowry and
that there was a threat to her life. One day prior to the incident,
she reportedly expressed apprehension that the accused persons
might kill her.
34. Based on the complaint and evidence collected during
investigation, an FIR was registered against the accused persons
under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before
the Judicial Magistrate, and the case was committed to the
Sessions Court for trial. During trial, charges were framed against
the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34, 306/34, and
498-A IPC. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false
implication. The prosecution examined several witnesses and
exhibited documentary evidence, including post-mortem report,
seizure memos, and FIR.
35. Upon conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted appellant Sarita
Keshari under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A IPC and sentenced
her accordingly.
36. After appreciating the submissions advanced by the prosecution
as well as the defence, and upon meticulous evaluation of the
medical as well as ocular evidence available on record, the Trial
Court came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was
not proved to be a case of suicide. The post-mortem report
indicated circumstances inconsistent with death by hanging, such
as froth emanating from the mouth, bleeding from the nose, and
absence of fracture of the hyoid bone, coupled with the fact that
the body had been brought down after cutting the saree. These
circumstances led the Court to hold that the death had occurred in
unnatural circumstances other than suicide. Consequently, the
charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC was held not
proved. However, the Court found sufficient evidence to establish
cruelty and dowry-related harassment, and accordingly convicted
the accused- Sarita Keshari under Sections 498-A and 304-B read
with Section 34 IPC, while extending the benefit of doubt and
acquitting her of the charges under Sections 302 and 306 IPC.
37. Mr.Sudeep Verma, Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA
No.51/2026 submits that no allegation with regard to demand of
dowry or cruelty was made at the earliest point of time by the
material witnesses, namely the father (PW-5), brother (PW-6) and
sister (PW-8) of the deceased, which casts serious doubt on the
prosecution story. It is further submitted that the prosecution
witnesses have failed to give any specific instances of cruelty
allegedly committed upon the deceased, nor have they
established any nexus between the alleged cruelty and demand of
dowry, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under
Section 304-B IPC. It is also argued that the entire case of the
prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of
circumstances is incomplete and fails to establish the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further
submits that none of the independent witnesses from the place of
occurrence i.e. Pendra, have been examined, and all the
prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses from Jabalpur,
whose testimonies are doubtful and unreliable.
38. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to
properly appreciate the defence evidence, particularly the
testimony of DW-1 Smt. Kiran Jaiswal, who has categorically
deposed that the relations between the appellant and the
deceased were cordial and that no cruelty was ever inflicted upon
the deceased. The conduct of the appellant, in taking care of the
minor child of the deceased after her demise, has also been
completely overlooked by the Trial Court. Lastly, learned counsel
submits that the appellant is an elderly lady suffering from age-
related ailments, who has already remained in custody for more
than three months, and further incarceration during the pendency
of the appeal would cause irreparable hardship and deterioration
of her health. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant be extended
the benefit of doubt and be acquitted of the charges, or in the
alternative, be granted appropriate relief by this Court.
39. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported
the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has
successfully established the ingredients of the offences under
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC through cogent and consistent
evidence. It is contended that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses clearly disclose persistent demand of dowry and
continuous harassment of the deceased soon before her death,
thereby attracting the statutory presumption under Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that minor
inconsistencies, if any, do not affect the core of the prosecution
case. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
on record and recorded a well-reasoned finding of conviction,
which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, it is prayed
that the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
40. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
41. Upon a thorough and independent re-appreciation of the entire
oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, this
Court finds that the learned trial Court has framed the relevant
points for determination in a comprehensive manner, touching
upon the nature of death of the deceased, the allegations of
homicidal act, cruelty and dowry demand, as well as abetment of
suicide. The findings recorded by the Trial Court on each of these
issues are now required to be examined in the backdrop of the
evidence led by the parties.
42. At the outset, insofar as the nature of death of deceased Divya
Kesari is concerned, the evidence unequivocally establishes that
her death occurred within the matrimonial home in circumstances
which were not normal. The merg intimation was promptly lodged
on 09.07.2010, and the prosecution has been able to establish the
sequence of events leading to the discovery of the deceased. The
testimony of the investigating officer (PW-10) demonstrates that
upon receipt of information, necessary procedural steps including
preparation of inquest, spot map and seizure proceedings were
carried out in accordance with law. The room where the incident
occurred was found closed and subsequently opened in presence
of witnesses, which further fortifies the prosecution case
regarding the place and manner of occurrence.
43. The medical evidence assumes crucial significance in determining
the cause and nature of death. The testimony of the doctor (PW-3),
read conjointly with the post-mortem report (Ex. P/5), clearly
reveals that the deceased had a ligature mark on her neck
consistent with hanging. The doctor has noticed that the body was
cold, there was froth mixed with blood emanating from the mouth
and nose, and the internal organs were congested. Importantly,
no external injuries suggestive of assault were found on the body
except those attributable to hanging. The dissection of the neck
structures showed compression of trachea, and the ligature mark
was found to be ante-mortem. The doctor has categorically opined
that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and the
nature of death was suicidal. The time since death was assessed to
be within 14 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem examination. There
is no material contradiction or infirmity in the medical evidence
which could discredit this opinion.
44. This Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the
medical evidence to conclude that the death of the deceased was
unnatural, though suicidal in nature. The contention raised by the
defence that the death was not suicidal does not find support
from the medical or circumstantial evidence on record. The
presence of a cut saree tied to the hook, the absence of signs of
struggle, and the consistent medical opinion all point towards
death by hanging.
45. Coming to the allegation of homicidal death under Section 302
IPC, the prosecution has failed to adduce any direct or
circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused persons
caused the death of the deceased by administering poison or by
strangulation. The chain of circumstances is not complete so as to
exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Trial
Court has, therefore, rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302/34
IPC.
46. Similarly, with regard to the charge under Section 306 IPC, this
Court finds that the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide
have not been satisfactorily established. There is no cogent
evidence to demonstrate instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid
on the part of the accused which compelled the deceased to
commit suicide. The Trial Court has thus correctly held that the
said charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
47. However, insofar as the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B
IPC are concerned, the evidence on record, particularly the
testimonies of the relatives of the deceased, establishes that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection
with demand of dowry. The fact that the death occurred within
seven years of marriage and in unnatural circumstances attracts
the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The defence has not been able to rebut this presumption by
leading any cogent evidence.
48. The argument of the defence that the prosecution witnesses are
interested witnesses and residents of another place does not, by
itself, render their testimony unreliable, especially when their
statements are consistent on material particulars and are
corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Minor omissions or
discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter. The Trial Court
has rightly appreciated the evidence in this regard.
49. Further, the defence evidence led through DW-1 has been duly
considered by the Trial Court; however, the same does not inspire
confidence so as to dislodge the otherwise consistent prosecution
case. The plea regarding cordial relations and subsequent conduct
of the accused in taking care of the child, though noted, cannot
outweigh the substantive evidence establishing cruelty and dowry-
related harassment.
50. In view of the medical evidence indicating not only the presence of
a ligature mark on the neck but also a contusion behind the left
mandible of the deceased, this Court finds sufficient material to
infer that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental
cruelty by the present appellant also, who was residing together in
the same household. The circumstances, taken cumulatively,
establish a clear nexus between the acts of torture and cruelty
inflicted by the appellant and the unfortunate death of the
deceased by suicide. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no ground for interference with the impugned
judgment is made out. The conviction of appellant Sarita Keshari
under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC is well-founded and calls for
no interference. The acquittal under Sections 302 and 306 IPC has
also been rightly granted on the basis of benefit of doubt.
51. Accordingly, the appeal being CRA No.51/2026 filed by appellant-
Sarita Keshari being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court are affirmed. She is in jail. She shall serve out
the sentence as awarded by the trial Court.
52. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.
53. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are
undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants
informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present
judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal
Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee.
Sd/-
Sd/-Sd
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek/Rahul Dewangan
