State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chaitram @ Yodatya

Radhakishan Agrawal, J

This is an acquittal appeal preferred by the State challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2004 passed in Session Trial No. 360 of 2003 by the by the Third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the Court below has acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 304 (B), 304 (B)/34 and 304(B)/34 of IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 13.07.2003, a written report (Ex.P/12) was lodged by the Ushabai Kachhi Patel (PW-1) alleging in it that her daughter Shanta Bai got married with appellant No. 2 Shiv Kumar on 16.05.2003. On 16/18.06.2003 On account of demand of dowry, Shanta Bai stayed in her maternal house and did not want to return to her in-laws' house. On 03.07.2003, when Shiv Kumar (respondent No.2 herein) visited her home and refused to take back to his home if the demand raised by hims is not fulfilled. Upon which, mother of Shanta Bai persuaded her son-in-law and bid farewell. Thereafter, she was subjected to physical and mental torture for not brining sufficient dowry. On 11.07.2003, on account of distress by harassment met by her husband and in-laws, Shanta Bai set herself on fire. Upon information, parents of the deceased Shanta Bai rushed the village Sarvan Deori and saw her burning dead body. Matter was reported to the Police Station, Ratanpur by the accused Shivkumar. Merg was recorded on the basis of written report by Shivkumar vide Ex.P.18. Inquest was done vide Ex.P.2. After inquest, dead body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. N.K.Samdaria (P.W.6) and Dr. Stella Tudu (P.W.7), who opined that death was due to shock as a result of extensive superficial and burn injuries found on her body were antemortem and grievous in nature. F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P.12. Vide arrest memo Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15, accused persons were arrested.

After completion of investigation challan was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur against the accused persons under Section 304 (B) of IPC. After commital of the case to the Sessions Court, the trial Court has framed charges against the respondents/accused persons under Section 304 (B) of IPC.

The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they have examined D.W.1 Vidur Kumar Kachhi and D.W.2 Fagni Kurmi in support of their defence.

By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents mainly on the ground that the prosecution has been unable to prove the involvement of the accused persons in crime in question.

Counsel for the State/appellant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case and thereby fallen into error in acquitting the respondents/accused persons.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court, on the basis of evidence available on record and after scanning the evidence led before it, has rightly acquitted the accused persons/respondents by its well-merited judgment, which does not call for interference.

We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record carefully.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerela reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

Admittedly, marriage between the deceased Shanta Bai and Shivkumar (one of the accused persons) was solemnised on 16.05.2003 and after marriage, the deceased started living with Shivkumar peacefully. Thereafter, Shanta Bai has died on account of burn injuries on 11.07.2003, which fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt as after the information of the death of deceased, post-mortem was conducted by Dr. N.K.Samdariya (P.W.6) and Dr. StellaTudu (P.W.7), according to whose report, the injuries found on the body of Shanta Bai, were antemortem and nature of these injuries have been shown to be serious and the deeceased died due to excessive burning.

Now, it is to be seen as to whether Shanta Bai was subjected to harassment, both physically and mentally, on account of bringing insufficient dowry. It appears that the witnesses, such as, P.W.1 Ushabai Kachhi Patel and P.W.2 Chandulal Patel are the parents of the deceased whereas Kishore Patel (P.W.10) is cousin and P.W.3 Balkrishna Goraha, Ku. Gayatri Kachhi and Pushpa Bai Patel are known to the deceased. A perusal of evidence of Chandulal (P.W.2) would clearly reveal that at the time of marriage, this witness has expressed his inability to give more dowry, which came to an end after marriage. During marriage, Shivkumar and his father did not raise any demand of T.V. and motorcycle to the family of Shanta Bai. Although it has come on record that deceased informed Kishore Patel (P.W.10) and Pushpa Bai (P.W.5) about the demand of dowry made by her husband and in-laws, but no effort has been made on behalf of family of Shanta Bai at least to call for the meeting of society and to pacify the dispute between Shivkumar and the deceased. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of Pushpa Bai (P.W.5), Ushabai Kachhi (P.W.1), Chandulal (P.W.2), Gayatri, friend of deceased (P.W.4) and other material evidence adduced by the prosecution and after arriving at a conclusion held that the appellant subjected Shanta Bai to harassment with respect to demand of dowry and the prosecution has utterly proved the same beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, a bare perusal of the record would reveal that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory in nature and there is inconsistency between the statements before the Police and in Court.

Defence Witness No.1 Vidur, in his evidence, has stated that on the date of incident, accused persons Shivkumar, Kamla Bai, Chaitram, this witness and one Fagni Bai had gone to the field and while they were returning, this witness was informed by his daughter that Shanta Bai was burning and immediately after receipt of this information, they rushed to the spot and saw the dead body. No effort was taken by the prosecution to rebut the evidence of defence on this point. In sum and substance, the prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting into acquittal of the accused persons of the charge, by the trial Court.

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two view are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents under Section 304 (B)/ 34 of IPC (thrice) is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the appeal by the State against acquittal is dismissed.