1

2026:CGHC:1840-DB

The date when

the judgment

is reserved

The date when

the judgment is

pronounced

The date when the

judgment is uploaded on

the website

Operative Full

- - -- 15.01.2026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 126 of 2017

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pamgarh, District

Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant

versus

1 – Ramkumar, S/o Bharat Lal Thawait, Aged About 24 Years,

2 – Bharatlal, S/o Dukaluram Thawait, Aged About 62 Years,

3 - Laxminbai, W/o Bharatlal Thawait, Aged About 59 Years,

All are R/o Village Rasauta, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir

Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

2

For Appellant : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Judgment on Board

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

13/01/2026

1.The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing

the judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Case

No. 127/2015 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the

respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 304-B and in alternative Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

2.The prosecution case is that the deceased Sarita was married to

accused Ramkumar Thawait on 10.06.2009. After a few months of

marriage, the accused subjected Sarita to physical and mental

cruelty on account of insufficient dowry and at one point, even

separated her from the matrimonial home. The accused

Ramkumar thereafter compelled Sarita to bring a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- from her parental home for construction of a

separate house, which amount was allegedly paid and utilized.

Subsequently, further demands were made for money for digging

a bore well and for articles such as a sofa, scooter, CD, etc. On

failure to meet these demands, Sarita was continuously harassed

3

and humiliated by her husband Ramkumar and her in-laws,

namely Bharatlal and Laxmibai.

On 25.04.2015, accused Ramkumar lodged a complaint

against Sarita at the police station. On the same day, allegedly

due to persistent cruelty and dowry-related harassment by the

accused persons, Sarita committed suicide by hanging herself

from a ceiling fan in her room. On receipt of information, Police

Station Pamgarh registered a case and conducted investigation,

including preparation of inquest (panchnama), spot map, Patwari

map, recording of witness statements, and sending seized articles

to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination. Upon completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 304-B read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, who, having no jurisdiction to try

the case, committed it to the Sessions Court, from where it was

transferred to this Court for trial and disposal. The learned Trial

Court framed charges against the respondents/accused under

Sections 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the

prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statements

of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all

the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and

4

pleaded innocence alleging false implication in the case. The

accused/respondents did not lead any evidence in defence.

4.Upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary

evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the

respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections

498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative

under Section 302/34 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned

judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, perverse

and contrary to both facts and law. The learned Trial Judge has

misappreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and

failed to assess the prosecution evidence in its proper

perspective. The prosecution witnesses are natural and

trustworthy and minor discrepancies or omissions in their

testimonies do not detract from their overall credibility. The

learned Trial Court erred in discarding reliable evidence,

particularly the testimonies of the mother and brother of the

deceased, on trivial contradictions, while overlooking material

evidence establishing cruelty and dowry-related harassment. It is

further contended that the prosecution has successfully proved

the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and alternatively under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt and the accused ought to have been

convicted accordingly. The learned Trial Court also erred in

branding the prosecution witnesses as interested witnesses and in

5

ignoring settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court governing cases of this nature. Consequently, the

impugned judgment is unsustainable in law, unjust and liable to be

set aside.

6.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

impugned judgment is legal, well-reasoned and based on proper

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The learned Trial

Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution witnesses, who are

interested and whose testimonies suffer from material

contradictions and inconsistencies. It is further submitted that the

prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences under

Sections 498-A, 304-B or alternatively Section 302 read with

Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court

has correctly applied settled legal principles and granted the

benefit of doubt to the respondents. The judgment of acquittal

warrants no interference and the appeal deserves dismissal.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. It is apparent from the record that the learned Trial Court framed

charges against the respondents/accused under Sections 498-A

and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and, in the alternative, under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon

due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on

6

record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused

of all the aforesaid charges.

9.It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased Sarita was

solemnized with accused Ramkumar Thawait on 10.06.2009 and

that Sarita died on 25.04.2015.

10.Ajay Singh (P.W.-1), villager of village- Rasouta deposed that

although he does not recollect the exact date of the incident,

about ten months prior thereto the deceased Sarita committed

suicide by hanging herself in a room of her matrimonial home. The

room was found locked from inside and, in his presence, the

police broke open the door with a crowbar and found Sarita

hanging from a scarf tied to the ceiling fan. The inquest

(panchnama) of the door was prepared vide Ex.P-1 and he admits

his signature on it from A to A part.

He further stated that prior notice was served upon him to

remain present during the inquest proceedings, which notice is

Ex.P-2 and bears his signatures from A to A part. The inquest

report (panchnama) is Ex.P-3, bearing his signatures from A to A

part. He also stated that the Halka Patwari prepared the site map

of the place of occurrence in his presence, marked as Ex.P-4, on

which his signatures appear from A to A part.

In his cross-examination, the witness admitted the defence

suggestion that at the time of the last rites of the deceased Sarita,

her parents did not level any allegation of harassment, quarrel or

7

any prior complaint relating to dowry. He denied the suggestion

that during the panchnama proceedings the accused Ramkumar

had stated that the deceased was in a relationship with one

Satyam. He further stated that he had signed the panchnama (Ex.

P-3) after it was read over and explained to him by the police.

11.Kishore Kumar Singh (P.W.-2) deposed that the wife of accused

Ramkumar committed suicide by hanging herself in her

matrimonial home. He stated that the police conducted the inquest

(panchnama) of the deceased in his presence after issuing him a

notice, marked as Ex. P/2, bearing his signatures from B to B part.

He also admitted his signatures on the inquest memo (Ex. P/3)

from B to B part.

In his cross-examination, he admitted the defence

suggestion that accused Rajkumar had informed the police that he

had caught the deceased Sarita with a boy named Satyam and

thereafter, she committed suicide by hanging herself.

12.Akash Thawait (P.W.-3), the brother of the deceased Sarita

stated that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid for construction

of a house and Rs.14,000/- for boring and despite the same, the

accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of

marriage, there is no demand of dowry. He also admitted this

suggestion that no report was made to the society or to the police

regarding the harassment allegedly inflicted upon Sarita by the

8

accused during her lifetime. He also admitted that while giving his

statement to the police, he had mentioned that the accused did

not come to see her sister at the time of childbirth and that they

occasionally harassed her in the name of dowry; however, since

these facts were not recorded in his police statement (Ex. D/1), he

was unable to explain the reason for their omission.

13.Mother of the deceased, Shiv Kumari Thawait (P.W.-4) stated

that Sarita lived harmoniously with her in-laws for about one

month after the marriage. Thereafter, her in-laws began

quarrelling with her and separated her from the joint household.

The witness further stated that Sarita and her husband had

purchased land after selling their jewellery and had expressed

their intention to construct a house, pursuant to which she gave a

sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Sarita for construction of the house. After

the house was constructed, an additional amount of Rs. 14,000/-

was given for getting a bore installed.

In her cross-examination, she admitted this suggestion of

defence that Sarita had asked for financial support, which the

witness had provided. She also admitted that at the time of the

panchnama, it was stated that Sarita was living well at her in-laws’

house.

14.The sister of the deceased, Sangeeta Thawait (P.W.-5) stated

that her mother had given an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the

deceased Sarita for the purpose of constructing a house. During

9

her cross-examination, she admitted that no demand for dowry

was made by the accused persons at the time of marriage. She

further stated that if the aforesaid facts were not mentioned in her

police statement (Ex. D/2), she was unable to explain the reason

for such omission.

15.Sub-Divisional Officer Bhupendra Kumar Agrawal (P.W.-6)

prepared the inquest memo in the presence of witnesses marked

as Ex.P/3. During his cross-examination, he admitted that at the

time of preparing the inquest memo, Ramkumar stated that the

deceased Sarita had an illicit relationship with Satyendra Yadav.

16.In inquest memo (Ex.P/3), it is mentioned that,“

जाँच परमृतिकागांव

केयादव लड़काकेसाथगलतसम्बन्धकोलेकर पतिपत्नीमेंविवादहुआथा।

”

बदनामीकेकारण स्वतःफांसीलगाकर आत्महत्याहोनाप्रतीतहोताहै।

17.The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral as well as

documentary evidence and found that the mother, brother and

sister of the deceased admitted that a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was

given for construction of a house as financial assistance and that

no demand for dowry was made at the time of marriage. They

also did not state that soon before her death, the deceased was

subjected to any cruelty on account of dowry.

18.The learned Trial Court rightly observed that although the death

of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage, the

prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty in connection with any demand for dowry. Further, the

10

independent witnesses admitted that the inquest memo recorded

that the deceased had an illicit relationship with another person.

Consequently, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution

failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond

reasonable doubt.

19.Hon’ble 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

11

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

12

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:

13

(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

14

or any relative of his for or in connection with any

demand of dowry, to reiterate, is the gravamen of the

two offences.”

20.The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest 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

evidence, 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;

15

(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

16

the decision of the Trial

Court.”

21.Having appreciated the entire evidence on record in the light of the

settled legal principles governing appeals against acquittal, this

Court finds that the learned Trial Court has taken a plausible and

legally sustainable view. Although the death of the deceased

occurred within seven years of marriage, the prosecution failed to

establish the indispensable ingredient of cruelty or harassment

“soon before death” in connection with any demand for dowry, so

as to attract Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or the presumption

under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The consistent

admissions of the deceased’s close relatives show that the

amounts paid were by way of financial assistance and not

pursuant to any dowry demand and there is no evidence of

contemporaneous cruelty. The inquest memo and testimony of

independent witnesses disclose an alternative narrative for the

deceased’s suicide.

22.In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are reasonably

possible, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily be

adopted. Interference is justified only when the findings of the Trial

Court are shown to be perverse, illegal or based on a manifest

misappreciation of evidence. Having regard to the limited scope of

interference in an appeal against acquittal, we find no illegality or

irregularity in the conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court.

No such infirmity is demonstrated in the present case so as to

17

warrant interference.

23.Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)

JUDGE JUDGE

Ruchi