Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Kumar And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 August, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:41130
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 25-06-2025
Judgment delivered on : 14-08-2025
CRA No. 1016 of 2008
1. Rohit Kumar, S/o Dhanpat Satnami, aged about 53 years,
2. Shyama Bai D/o Dhanpat Satnami, aged about 40 years,
Both R/o Village Khairwar Khurd, Police Station Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur
(CG)
--- Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Mungeli, Distt.
Bilaspur (CG)
--- Respondent
CRA No. 1017 of 2008
Harekrishna Chaturvedi S/o Dhanpat Chaturvedi, aged about 29 years,
R/o Village Khairwar Khurd, Police Station Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur
(CG)
— Appellant
2
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Mungeli, Distt.
Bilaspur (CG)
--- Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
CAV Judgment
Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.11.2008 passed by II Additional
Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur in ST Nos.9/2007 and
17/2007, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the
impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted under
Section 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of Sukhmani
Bai was solemnized with accused Harekrishna Satnami around four
years prior to the date of incident. On 29.9.2006 she suffered 60% burn
injuries at her matrimonial house and was admitted to Community
Health Centre, Lormi. After receipt of information from the doctor, her
dying declaration was recorded. However, she was referred to
Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur where
during the course of treatment she died on 4.10.2006. During merg
inquiry it revealed that the accused persons used to torture and harass
3
her for bringing motorcycle and cash of Rs.40,000/- from her parental
house as dowry as a result of which either she immolated herself or
was burnt to death by the accused persons. After conducting
postmortem of the deceased, preparing spot map, effecting seizure of
burnt clothes of the deceased and recording statements of the
witnesses, charge sheet under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed
against the accused followed by framing of charge accordingly by
learned trial court which was abjured by them and they prayed for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 14
witnesses. 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.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence
these appeals.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants wound submit that the
impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material
available on record. As per dying declaration Ex.P/2 recorded by Dr.
Gajendra Singh Dau (PW-1) it is clear that present is a case of
accidental death and this fact is also corroborated by the postmortem
4
report Ex.P/12. The postmortem report also shows that the burn is
ante-mortem in nature. He would next submit that at the time
preparation of inquest report, though father of the deceased (PW-4
Satanand Bhaskar) was present but he did not make any allegation
regarding demand of dowry against the accused persons at that time
and it is only after about three months of the incident that the witnesses
stated against the accused persons in their police statements, which is
nothing but an afterthought. Learned trial Court did not properly
appreciate the major contradiction and omission in the statements of
the material witnesses i.e. PW-3 Jillar Bai and PW-4 Satanand, mother
and father of the deceased.
He would further submit that despite availability of independent
witnesses, the prosecution did not examine them which creates doubt
on the veracity of the prosecution story. Though the parents of the
deceased have stated that soon after marriage she was being
harassed and ill-treated by the accused persons for dowry but they
admit that no report was ever lodged by them against the accused
persons to the police regarding demand of dowry and no social
meeting was ever convened in this regard. The investigating officer
(PW-13) has also categorically stated that prior to death of the
deceased, no report was ever lodged by the deceased or her parents
regarding demand of dowry by the accused persons. Moreover, there
is inordinate delay of 83 days in lodging the FIR. There is no iota of
evidence on record to show that soon before her death she was
5
subjected to cruelty by the accused persons regarding demand of
dowry. Learned trial court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section
304B of IPC as well as Section 113 of the Evidence Act whereas in
view of the overall evidence on record it stands established that the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the necessary ingredients
constituting the alleged offence against the accused/appellants beyond
all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment being illegal
and perverse is liable to be set aside.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR
1997 SC 1873; judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of
Dr. Seetharamaiah Vs State of Karnataka, 2010 Cri.L.J. 3389;
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramaiah @
Rama Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 3388; Major Singh Vs.
State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 2081; judgment dated 20th April, 2023
of Hon’ble Supreme Court CRA No.447/2012 in the matter of Charan
Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand; and judgment
dated 5.2.2025 of this Court in CRA No.205/2005 in the matter of
Santosh Kumar and others Vs. State of CG.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and conduct
6
of the accused persons has rightly recorded a finding that they caused
dowry death of the deceased. As such, the impugned judgment being
strictly in accordance with law needs no interference by this Court and
the present appeals being devoid of any substance are 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/appellants were charged under Section 304B of IPC and after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced them under Section 304B of IPC.
09. It is not disputed in this case that deceased Sukhmani Bai was
wife of Harekrishna Chaturvedi and daughter-in-law of Shyamabai and
Rohit Kumar. Her marriage with Harekrishna was solemnized about
four years prior to 23.4.2008. She was admitted in hospital on
29.9.2006 with 60% burn injuries and succumbed to the same on
4.10.2006.
10. PW-12 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Rawatram along with Dr. VK Pathak
on 5.10.2006 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and
found her 70% burnt of third degree. In their opinion, it was ante-
mortem burn which could be caused accidentally, the cause of death
was cardio respiratory failure as a result of septicemia from the burn
7
injuries. The postmortem report is Ex.P/12 which bears his signature
from A to A part and that of Dr. Pathak from B to B part.
11. PW-1 Dr. Gajendra Singh Dau recorded dying declaration of the
deceased. He states that he recorded the dying declaration on
29.9.2006 at about 11 pm wherein she stated that at around 9.30 while
she was taking out items kept on the almirah, at that time the chimney
fell on her as a result of which her clothes caught fire and she got
burnt. In reply to the question whether she was burnt by anyone, she
answered in the negative. The dying declaration is Ex.P/2 which bears
his signature from A to A part and thumb impression of the deceased is
from B to B part. In reply to the question asked by the Court as to on
what basis he recorded dying declaration of the deceased, he stated
that he received a letter to this effect from Police Station – Lormi, on
the basis of which he recorded her dying declaration.
12. PW-3 Jilar Bai, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Satanand
Bhaskar state that Sukhmani Bai used to tell that Harekrishna, Rohit
and Shyama Bai harass and torture her for motorcycle and cash of
Rs.40000/-, they pour water on her food and threaten to kill her by
burning. In cross-examination PW-3 Jilar Bai admits that at the time of
Rakshabandhan also her daughter informed her about this ill-treatment
but no report was lodged with the police and also no social meeting
was convened and no relative was told about this. She then volunteers
that it was not done with the hope that everything would get settled
8
with the passage of time. PW-4 Satanand also admits that no report
was earlier lodged with the police by her daughter/deceased or himself.
13. PW-5 Rukhmani Kurre, neighbour of the deceased, states that
when she asked the deceased about her poor health condition, she
disclosed that her brother-in-law (Jeth) and husband torture her for
Rs.40,000-50,000/- and motorcycle. In cross-examination she denied
the statement given to the police that the deceased told her about
demand of Rs.40,000-50,000/- and volunteers that the deceased told
her about demand of Rs.40,000/-.
14. Learned trial Court on the basis of statements of mother and
father of the deceased held the accused/appellants guilty u/s 304B of
IPC but it is clear from the statement of PW-1 Dr. Gajendra that in her
dying declaration the victim stated that while she was taking out items
kept on the almirah, at that time the chimney fell on her as a result of
which her clothes caught fire and she got burnt. The autopsy surgeon
(PW-12) also opines that there is possibility of the victim suffering the
burn injuries accidentally. There is no other dying declaration recorded
during investigation. Further, as per FIR (Ex.P/13) the incident took
place on 4.10.2006 whereas the report was lodged on 27.12.2006 and
delay in lodging the report was attributed to merg enquiry.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh @
Charanjit Singh (supra) held in paras 11 & 21 of its judgment as
under:
9
“11. The interpretation of Sections 3048 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:
(1) 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:
“(1) 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), oг(II) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawfül 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.
10
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 in 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.”
21. In the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, none of the
witnesses stated about the cruelty or harassment to the deceased
by the appellant or any of his family members on account of
demand of dowry soon before the death or otherwise. Rather
harassment has not been narrated by anyone. It is only certain
oral averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which
is also much prior to the incident. The aforesaid evidence led by
the prosecution does not fulfil the pre-requisites to invoke
presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC
are not made out for the same reason as there is no evidence of
cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before her death.”
16. In the matter of Seetharamaiah and another (supra) where the
father of the deceased was present at the time of inquest, had never
lodged complaint as to demand of additional dowry, FIR was registered
11
only after 10 days of incident, the prosecution failed to prove case
against the accused regarding dowry and acceptance, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court acquitted the accused of the charges. In paras 21, 22
& 23 of the judgment it was observed thus:
“21. Of course, the defense of the accused is that the deceased
was suffering from stomach-ache and also pain in the left lower
limb as such, she being frustrated, committed suicide. It is seen,
on some occasions the deceased had been treated at the
hospital for which some documents are produced. Further, it is
the specific case of the father of the deceased and other
witnesses viz., PWs. 6 & 7, mother and sister that accused was
never allowing the deceased to attend any of the ceremonies in
their family. Even as per the prosecution, the deceased requested
the 1st accused to take her to the house warming ceremony of
one of her relatives and he refused to take her on which much
thrust has been given in the evidence of PWs. 5 to 7. Of course,
due to such an indifferent attitude on the part of 1st accused, the
deceased must have felt humiliated or got annoyed. In the usual
course, family bickering between spouses by itself, cannot be
said to be a reason for her to commit suicide and it may not be a
ground to hold against the accused that there was abetment to
commit suicide and also that the accused is guilty of the offence
u/s 498A, IPC.
22. From the evidence on record that of PWs. 5 to 7 and PW 15,
it is seen, they have spoken about the deceased complaining of
harassment to her whenever she used to meet them. In this
regard, however, no complaint has been filed by the family of the
deceased against the accused. Apart from that, what is noticed is,
the deceased was residing along with her husband and after
12marriage, for three years she lead marital life and also gave birth
to a child. It is also noticed, the 1st accused was demanding Rs.
20,000/- as per the evidence of some of the witnesses and also
they made arrangement to pay Rs. 15,000/-. In this regard, PW 5
has not stated or whispered anything before the Taluka Executive
Magistrate. So, it appears to be an afterthought to make out a
dowry harassment case to implicate the accused. Even with
regard to the evidence as to collecting dowry is concerned, the
statement of PW 5 is that the 2nd accused has collected dowry
amount whereas in the further statement it is stated that 1st
accused has collected the dowry amount and that itself shows
that there is much contradictions and Ex.D5 also depicts the
contradiction version. Moreover, in the absence of any such
complaint being filed by PW 5 or 6 on coming to know of the
death of the deceased except the suspicion they have expressed
at the time of recording the inquest statement by the Tahsildar, no
other steps have been taken by PW 5 to file the complaint. Even
the FIR is registered for the alleged offences only after ten days.
Certain of the contradictions marked at Ex.D4 to 6 show that
there is no such demand by the accused for dowry; May be some
misunderstanding between the husband and wife regarding not
allowing the deceased to attend the function of her relative but,
that itself cannot be treated as a cruelty harassment. In order to
prove the offence u/s 304B, IPC, death must have occurred within
seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances in connection
with dowry harassment. The evidence of the neighbouring
witnesses is consistent and contradicts the version of the
relatives of the deceased and also, apart from that, the boy-PW 7
who was residing along with the deceased and the accused has
not whispered anything about any untoward incident that has
occurred to hold the accused guilty of the offences under
Sections 498A and 304B, IPC. Even if some amount is given or
13taken, it appears to be in the form of customary practice having
regard to the status of the family and, even for having made
payment, there is no record made available. Believing the version
of the relatives of the deceased as gospel truth the trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the accused without looking into the
various contradictions and admissions and also the delay in filing
the complaint. The complaint is lodged, that too by the police,
after ten days. Ex.D1 to D3 are the prescriptions of the deceased
who was treated for ailments. The statement of PW 5 is recorded
by the police only after 9 to 10 days after the death of the
deceased and nothing has been stated by him in the Inquest
Report regarding alleged demand for additional dowry by the
accused. It appears to be an afterthought and improvement made
by the prosecution witnesses, especially by PWs. 5 to 7.
23. In view of the above discussion, having noticed that deceased
committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, it appears
her death would have probably been due to misunderstanding
between the deceased and the 1st accused in not sending her to
attend the ceremony of her relative in the family of her parents.
Although several wild allegations are made, there is no cogent
evidence to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. The
order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court is
without looking into the contradictions and also without
considering the material evidence of the independent witnesses
who got to speak about the attitude of the accused with the
deceased.”
17. As discussed above, in the present case also, it is clear that
inquest memo was prepared by the police on 5.10.2006, at that time
father of the deceased Satanand (PW-4) was present but did not make
14
any complaint at that time and the FIR (Ex.P/13) was lodged after 83
days of the incident. PW-1 Dr. Gajendra recorded dying declaration of
the deceased (Ex.P/2) wherein she categorically stated that while she
was taking out items kept on the almirah, the chimney fell on her as a
result of which her clothes caught fire and she got burnt. The autopsy
surgeon (PW-12) also opined that the burn injuries could be suffered
accidentally. However, learned trial Court did not appreciate all these
statements and merely on the basis of statements of mother and father
held the accused/appellants guilty under Section 304B of IPC. Though
the prosecution has proved two of the three pre-requisites for
constituting the offence u/s 304B of IPC that death of the deceased
occurred by burn injuries within seven years of her marriage but utterly
failed to prove the third ingredient 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 of dowry. There is
thus no evidence to invoke presumption under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act for constituting the offence of dowry death against the
accused/appellants.
18. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment
convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304B of IPC is hereby
set aside and they are acquitted of this charge. They are reported to be
on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of
BNSS, 2023, each of the accused/appellants is also directed to furnish
15
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, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall
appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
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.
Sd/
Digitally signed
(Rajani Dubey)
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN
2025.08.14
16:31:37
Judge
+0530Khan