1

2026:CGHC:416-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

- - -- 07.01.2026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 139 of 2018

1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Baradwar, District

Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant

versus

1 - Trilochan S/o Ganesh Ram Aged About 35 Years Occupation-

Labour, Resident of Village Sakreli, Police Station Baradwar, District-

Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

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

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragati Pandey on behalf of Mr. Hari

Agrawal, Advocate

2

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Judgment on Board

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

05/01/2026

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

the judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Second

Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

in Sessions Case No. 07/2016 whereby the learned trial Court

acquitted the respondent/accused of the offences punishable

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.Earlier, the bailable warrant issued against the

respondent/accused was received unexecuted with an

endorsement that he was not residing at the address mentioned

therein.

3.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Akkabai alias

Meenabai, was initially married to Sakunram, resident of village

Sundareli (Jarwe). As she remained issueless for about 15–16

years, her husband Sakunram contracted a second marriage and

brought another woman to the matrimonial home. Thereafter,

Akkabai alias Meenabai left her matrimonial house and started

residing with her parents. After about four years, the accused

Trilochan Kumar married the deceased by putting bangles on her

hands, in accordance with customary practices and kept her as

3

his wife. In this regard, a written agreement was also executed on

stamped paper.

However, within a few days of the marriage, the accused

Trilochan Kumar allegedly started subjecting the deceased to

physical and mental cruelty by beating and harassing her with a

demand to bring money and stamp paper from her parental home

and from his brother. Due to such continuous cruelty and

harassment, the deceased Akkabai alias Meenabai suffered

severe physical and mental trauma.

On 30.07.2015, the deceased Akkabai alias Meenabai

sustained burn injuries under suspicious circumstances. She was

initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Champa, and

thereafter referred to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment.

Information regarding her hospitalization was sent to Police

Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur by SIMS Hospital through intimation

letters Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-23. During the course of treatment, the

deceased succumbed to her injuries on 31.07.2015 at SIMS

Hospital, Bilaspur.

On 31.07.2015, upon receipt of the hospital memo, an

unnumbered merg intimation No. 0/388/15 (Ex.P-24) was

registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur. After issuing

notice (Ex.P-4) to the witnesses, an inquest was conducted and

the dead body of the deceased Akkabai alias Meenabai was sent

for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-5)

4

was prepared in the presence of witnesses. As per the post-

mortem examination conducted at SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, Dr.

Rizwan Siddiqui, vide his report (Ex.P-15), opined that the cause

of death was respiratory and cardiac failure due to burn injuries.

The fact of proceeding to the hospital has been corroborated by

Santosh Kumar (PW-3) and Dilip Kumar Jangde (PW-12).

On receipt of the unnumbered inquest report No. 0/388/2015

from Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, a numbered inquest

report No. K-45/15 (Ex.P-27) was registered at Police Station

Baradwar and investigation in the matter commenced. During the

course of inquiry, prima facie material was found against the

accused, whereupon a First Information Report (Ex.P-28) was

registered against him under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal

Code on 16.12.2015 at Police Station Baradwar. Statements of

witnesses were recorded, the spot map (Ex.P-34) was prepared in

presence of witnesses and the Patwari also prepared a site plan

(Ex.P-31). The accused was arrested and his arrest memo (Ex.P-

35) was prepared and due intimation of his arrest was given to his

family members.

After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under

Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the

accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti.

Thereafter, in Criminal Case No. 173/2016, by order dated

09.03.2016, the case was committed to the Court of the learned

District and Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, who subsequently,

5

on 18.03.2016, transferred the case to the Court of the learned

First Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal.

4.The Trial Court framed charges against the accused under

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

alternative, under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the

charges and claimed trial. His plea was recorded accordingly.

Subsequently, in pursuance of the distribution of work order dated

26.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the case was

transferred to the present Court by the learned First Additional

Sessions Judge for adjudication.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the

prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. The statement of

the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded

innocence alleging false implication in the case. The

accused/respondent did not lead any evidence in defence.

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

evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the

respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections

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

under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the scope

of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the appellate

6

Court is nonetheless empowered to re-appreciate the entire

evidence on record. It is a settled principle of law that where the

findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse, unreasonable,

or contrary to the evidence available on record, the appellate

Court is fully justified in setting aside such acquittal and recording

an order of conviction in accordance with law.

In the present case, the learned Trial Court has gravely

erred in acquitting the respondent/accused despite overwhelming

oral and documentary evidence establishing his guilt. The

evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses has

not been appreciated in its proper perspective, and material

evidence, including the post-mortem report and medical opinion,

has been misread and misconstrued. The learned Trial Court has

proceeded on conjectures and surmises, leading to findings which

are manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law.

It is further submitted that the prosecution evidence is

consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, clearly proving that the

respondent/accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and that

the death occurred in circumstances squarely attracting the

offences alleged. The learned Trial Judge failed to draw the

necessary legal inferences arising from the proved facts and

thereby committed a serious error of law in acquitting the

respondent/accused.

Upon a careful and holistic scrutiny of the entire record, it is

evident that the prosecution has successfully proved its case

7

beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Court below ought to have

convicted the respondent/accused for the offences punishable

under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial

Court also failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the

conduct of the respondent/accused, which were material

considerations in the facts of the present case. It is also submitted

that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with

the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and

no illegality or procedural infirmity exists so as to discredit the

prosecution case. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully

submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned

Trial Court is unjust, improper, perverse and contrary to law and

the evidence on record and therefore deserves to be set aside.

8.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is

extremely limited and the presumption of innocence in favour of

the respondent stands further strengthened by the judgment of

acquittal. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution

suffers from material contradictions and infirmities and the learned

Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the same. The findings recorded

are based on a plausible view of the evidence and do not warrant

interference by the appellate Court merely because another view

is possible. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be

8

dismissed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned

Trial Court deserves to be affirmed.

9.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on

record including the impugned judgment.

10.It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that

charges were framed against the accused/respondent under

Sections 498-A and 304-B and alternatively under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. However, upon due appreciation of the

oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial

Court acquitted the accused/respondent of all the charges so

framed.

11.It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that the deceased

Akkabai @ Meenabai was first married to Sakunram of village

Sundareli (Jarve). Having no issue for about 15–16 years,

Sakunram contracted a second marriage, whereafter Akkabai left

the matrimonial home and resided with her parents. After about

four years, accused Trilochan Kumar took Akkabai as his wife by

performing customary rites of bangles, supported by a written

document on stamp paper. On 30.07.2015, Akkabai sustained

burn injuries and succumbed to them on 31.07.2015 during

treatment at SIMS Hospital.

12.The prosecution examined several witnesses, namely, Faguna

Ram Jangde (P.W.-1), brother of the deceased; Smt. Devki

Jangde (P.W.-2), sister-in-law of the deceased; Santosh Kumar

(P.W.-3), a relative of the deceased; Bhagwan Das (P.W.-4), a

9

relative of the deceased; Itwari (P.W.-5), a villager of Dumarpara;

Natthuram (P.W.-6), a villager of Dumarpara; Jagatram Jangde

(P.W.-7), a relative of the deceased; Chaitam (P.W.-8), a relative of

the deceased; Ganpat (P.W.-9), brother-in-law of the deceased;

Tiharin Bai (P.W.-10), sister of the deceased; Jawahar Lal (P.W.-

11), a relative of the deceased; and Dilip Kumar Jangde (P.W.-12),

a relative of the deceased. All these witnesses stated that the

deceased, Meenabai @ Akkabai was married to the respondent-

accused Trilochan by way of customary Chudi marriage and that

an agreement was executed in the presence of elderly persons of

the village. They further deposed that after the marriage, the

deceased resided peacefully with the accused for about four to

five years and thereafter the accused allegedly subjected her to

physical assault after consuming alcohol and demanded money

from her. However, in their respective cross-examinations, these

witnesses admitted the defence suggestion that the marriage

between the deceased and Trilochan was performed in

accordance with the customary Chudi form and that a written

agreement was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.60/- /Rs.100/-

stipulating that in the event of any harassment or ill-treatment by

Trilochan, 50 decimals of land would be transferred in favour of

the deceased.

13.Some of the prosecution witnesses alleged that the accused

had caused the death of Meenabai. However, Dr. Rizwan Siddiqui

(P.W.-13), who conducted the post-mortem examination of the

10

deceased, categorically admitted that the nature of death was not

mentioned in the post-mortem report.

14.None of the relatives of the deceased alleged that the deceased

was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any

demand for dowry soon before her death.

15.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 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

11

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.

12

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

13

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.”

16.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:-

14

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;

(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;

15

(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.”

17.Upon a cumulative appreciation of the entire oral and documentary

evidence on record, this Court finds that the findings recorded by

the learned Trial Court are neither perverse nor illegal. The

prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the

essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections

498-A and 304-B or alternatively under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code.

18.The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, most of whom are

close relatives of the deceased, unequivocally establish that the

marriage between the deceased Akkabai @ Meenabai and the

accused Trilochan was a customary Chudi marriage, duly

evidenced by a written agreement executed on stamp paper in the

presence of village elders. Their own depositions further reveal

16

that the deceased resided peacefully with the accused for a

period of about four to five years after the marriage, which

significantly weakens the allegation of persistent cruelty or

harassment.

19.Though certain witnesses made vague and omnibus allegations

regarding assault and demand for money, none of them deposed

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in

connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. In

the absence of such cogent and proximate evidence, the

mandatory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian

Evidence Act is not attracted, thereby rendering the charge under

Section 304-B IPC unsustainable.

20.The medical evidence also does not lend support to the

prosecution case of homicidal death. Dr. Rizwan Siddiqui (P.W.-

13), who conducted the post-mortem examination, categorically

admitted that the nature of death was not specified in the post-

mortem report. In the absence of a clear and definite medical

opinion regarding the cause and nature of death, the charge

under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained.

21.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion,

howsoever strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. The

evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material

inconsistencies and lacks substantive corroboration. At best, the

evidence gives rise to one plausible view favouring the accused

17

and in such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit

of doubt.

22.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and has taken a plausible and reasonable

view in acquitting the accused. The judgment of acquittal,

therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court.

23.Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)

JUDGE JUDGE

Ruchi