1 / 23

2026:CGHC:23951

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

27.04.2026 16.06.2026 -- 16.06.2026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1064 of 2014

1.Subhash Chandra Yadav, S/o Bhagwan Chandra Yadav

Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Pakariya, P.S.

Shivrinarayan, Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. At Present

Housing Board Colony, Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil And

Rev. Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

2.Bhagwan Chandra Yadav S/o Late Puranik Lal Yadav, Aged

About 59 Years, R/o Village Pakariya, P.S. Shivrinarayan,

Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. At Present Housing Board

Colony, Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh.

3.Smt. Aruna Yadav, W/o Bhagwan Chandra Yadav, Aged

About 51 Years, R/o Village Pakariya, P.S. Shivrinarayan,

Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. At Present Housing Board

Colony, Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh.

2 / 23

4.Sandeep Kumar Yadav, S/o Bhagwan Chandra Yadav, Aged

About 24 Years, R/o Village Pakariya, P.S. Shivrinarayan,

Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. At Present Housing Board

Colony, Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh.

5.Sanjay Kumar Yadav, S/o Bhagwan Chandra Yadav, Aged

About 28 Years, R/o Village Pakariya, P.S. Shivrinarayan,

Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G. At Present Housing Board

Colony, Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants

versus

 State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, P.S. Jashpur, Distt.

Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For Appellants :Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate.

For Respondent/State:Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L.

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

(C A V Judgment)

1.This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentenced dated 16.10.2014 passed

in Session Trial No. 20/2014, whereby the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

3 / 23

Conviction of appellant Nos.

1 and 2 under Section

304(B)/34 of IPC.

R.I. for 07 years.

Conviction of appellant Nos.

3 to 5 under Section 498(A) of

IPC.

R.I. for 01 year and to pay

fine of Rs.500/- each, in

default of payment of fine

amount to undergo

additional R.I. for 01

month.

2.The prosecution story leading to conviction of the

accused/appellants is that the marriage of deceased Rajani

Yadav was solemnized on 23.04.2012 with accused

Subhash Yadav (A-1), son of accused Bhagwan Chand (A-

2). After a few months of marriage, the deceased was

subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her mother-in-

law/accused Aruna Yadav (A-3), father-in-law Bhagwan

Chand (A-2), husband Subhash Yadav (A-1), elder brother-

in-law Sanjay Yadav (A-5), and younger brother-in-law

Sandeep Yadav (A-4) on account of demand for a

motorcycle. Owing to such harassment, deceased Rajani

Yadav had been residing at her parental home since July

2012. About two months prior to the incident, the deceased

had returned to her matrimonial home along with her child.

After returning to her matrimonial home, she was again

subjected to harassment by the accused persons. The

4 / 23

deceased had informed her father over the telephone that

her in-laws were threatening to kill her. On 20.11.2013, the

deceased informed through a mobile phone that the

accused/appellants had assaulted her severely in

connection with the demand for a motorcycle. On

21.11.2013, the deceased again telephoned her brother

Rajesh Yadav and asked him to come and take her away,

otherwise her in-laws would kill her. Thereafter, the

deceased’s father Janak Yadav and his wife left for Jashpur.

Meanwhile, at about 6:30 p.m., accused Bhagwan Chandra

(A-2) telephonically informed them that their daughter had

committed suicide by hanging herself.

3.After the death of deceased Rajni Yadav, accused Subhash

Yadav (A-1) lodged a merg intimation (Ex. P/8) at Police

Station Jashpur. Thereafter, the deceased’s father Janak

Yadav submitted a written report (Ex. P/5) at Police Station

Jashpur. On the basis thereof, an FIR (Ex. P/13) for the

offence punishable under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC was

registered against the accused persons at Police Station

Jashpur. The spot map of the place of occurrence was

prepared vide Ex. P/10. The inquest over the dead body of

deceased Rajni Yadav was conducted as per Ex. P/04.

Postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted at

District Hospital, Jashpur, and the postmortem report (Ex.

5 / 23

P/07) was obtained, according to which the cause of death

of deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. One saree was

seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. P/06. The

seized saree was sent for examination, and the examination

report was obtained vide Ex. P/12A. The Patwari prepared

spot map vide Ex. P/05. Accused persons namely Subhash

Yadav (A-1), Bhagwan Chand Yadav (A-2), Aruna Yadav (A-

3), Sandeep Kumar Yadav (A-4), and Sanjay Kumar Yadav

(A-5) were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. P/16, Ex. P/17,

Ex. P/18, and Ex. P/19 respectively. Statements of the

witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. After

due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

accused/appellants for the offence under Sections 304(B),

34 of IPC before the jurisdictional Court at Jashpur.

4.After filing of the charge sheet, the learned trial Court

framed the charges against accused/appellants under

Sections 304-B/34 alternatively under Section 302 read with

section 34 of IPC. The accused/appellants abjured their guilt

and pleaded innocence.

5.So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution

has examined as many as 13 witnesses. One defence

witness namely Naini Yadav (DW-1) was also examined by

the appellants in their defence. Statements of the

6 / 23

accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313

of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled

against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in

the case.

6.After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court

has convicted and sentenced the present

accused/appellants as mentioned above in para 1 of this

judgment. Hence this appeal.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Prosecution

has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section

304-B IPC. To sustain a conviction under Section 304-B

IPC, the prosecution must have proved that the deceased

was subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty

must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and

that the same must be shown to have occurred soon before

the death but the prosecution has failed to prove these

ingredients. Learned counsel also submits that the death is

conclusively proven to be suicidal and not homicidal. There

is no independent witness from the locality, neighborhood,

or community confirming cruelty or harassment. It is settled

in law that omnibus, general, and vague allegations are

insufficient for conviction.

7 / 23

8.Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court

did not consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution

as well as the defence. It was submitted that Janak Yadav

(P.W.-3), the father of the deceased, and Janmati Yadav

(P.W.-4), the mother of the deceased, have categorically

admitted in their deposition that the elder father, cousin

brother Golu Yadav and real sister Vidya Yadav of the

deceased had also committed suicide by hanging. The said

witnesses further admitted that they had never lodged any

report before any Police Station alleging demand of dowry

or harassment by the appellants for motorcycle. Janmati

Yadav (P.W.-4) further stated that the Police of Jashpur had

never made any enquiry from her and that she had not

given any statement to the Police during investigation.

These material admissions completely demolish the

prosecution story regarding persistent cruelty and demand

of dowry.

9.It is further submitted that Janak Yadav (P.W.-3) has clearly

deposed that appellant No.1 was serving in a Government

job as Electrician Trainer in Industrial Training Institute,

Jashpur. He further admitted that appellant No.2 had

deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in his bank account

maintained in State Bank of India, Pamgarh Branch on

09.07.2012. Such conduct on the part of the appellants is

8 / 23

wholly inconsistent with the allegation that the deceased

was being harassed for demand of motorcycle. The

prosecution allegation regarding dowry demand is thus

inherently improbable and false. Learned counsel further

submits that Suresh Kumar Sahu (P.W.-1) has specifically

deposed that the statements of the parental family members

of the deceased were not recorded by the Police in his

presence and that no external injury was found on the dead

body of deceased Rajni Yadav. This witness materially

weakens the prosecution case regarding alleged assault

and cruelty immediately before the incident. It is also argued

that Manoj Kumar Yadav (P.W.-8) admitted in his deposition

that prior to marriage, the deceased Rajni Yadav had fallen

from the roof of a house and suffered fracture in her leg.

This circumstance indicates that the deceased was not

physically and mentally stable even prior to marriage and

the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the true

background of the deceased.

10.Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that

defence witness Naini Yadav (D.W.-1) has categorically

deposed that prior to the marriage itself, there were already

three motorcycles in the house of the appellants and,

therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for the

appellants to demand another motorcycle from the parental

9 / 23

family of the deceased. The said witness further stated that

the appellants never subjected the deceased to any cruelty

or harassment for demand of motorcycle. The learned trial

Court has failed to assign any cogent reason for discarding

the defence evidence. It is next contended that the

conviction of the appellants is based merely upon omnibus,

vague and general allegations, which are not supported by

any independent evidence. The prosecution has failed to

establish any specific overt act against the appellants. There

is no reliable evidence to prove that the deceased was

subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection

with demand of dowry. Learned counsel further submits that

the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the deceased

was mentally disturbed even before marriage and due to her

mental condition she committed suicide by hanging herself.

The possibility of suicide on account of personal mental

condition has not been ruled out by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the

appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the

appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary

evidence in its true and proper perspective. Learned

counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has failed

10 / 23

to consider that the chain of circumstantial evidence as

brought by the prosecution does not establish beyond

reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused/appellant. Thus,

the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the appellant.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble

Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanji

Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhan reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 454, and decision of this High Court dated

07.05.2025 of this High Court passed in CRA

No.1306/2022 and other connected matters [Vinay

Kumar Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh & other

connected matters].

11.On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

submits that the prosecution has successfully proved all

essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution

has consistently shown through the testimony of the

deceased’s father and mother and supporting witnesses that

the accused/appellant subjected the deceased to continued

harassment for dowry. The learned trial Court minutely

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and

convicted the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the

11 / 23

accused/appellant be upheld, and the appeal may be

dismissed as devoid of merit.

12.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

13.It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the

learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 304-B

read with section 34 of IPC, alternatively under Section 302

read with section 34 of IPC against the accused/appellants

and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

the learned trial Court has convicted the present

accused/appellants under Sections 304-B (34) and 498-A of

IPC.

14.It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that

deceased Rajani was wife of accused/appellant Subhash

Yadav (A-1), their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2012

and Rajani died on 21.11.2013 i.e. within 07 years of her

marriage by hanging.

15.The question which arise for consideration is whether the

death of deceased Rajani was homicidal or suicidal in

nature.

16.Dr. Purushottam Kumar Singh (PW-9) is the doctor who

conducted postmortem of the deceased and gave his report

12 / 23

under Ex.P.-7. According to which, the doctor has opined the

cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to hanging

and the nature of death depends upon circumstances.

However, other prosecution witnesses have stated different

story with regard to the death of deceased.

17.Janak Yadav (PW-3), Jaanmati Yadav (PW-4) and Rajesh

Kumar Yadav (PW-6), father, mother and brother of the

deceased respectively, have stated that they were informed

that deceased Rajani committed suicide.

18.The learned Trial Court finds that the death of deceased

was by other than in normal circumstances which occurred

within 07 years of her marriage and no definite finding was

expressed by the learned Trial Court regarding her death. It

is evident that the prosecution has also not challenged this

finding and it is well settled principle of law that it is

incumbent upon the prosecution to prove, through

trustworthy evidence, that the death was homicidal in nature

but the prosecution has failed to do so in the present case,

and looking to the statement of accused persons and cross-

examination of prosecution witnesses, it is evident that at

the time of death of deceased, the door of the room was

closed from inside and after breaking open the door, the

deceased was seen hanging by saree and the doctor (PW-

13 / 23

9) has also not found any antemortem injury over the body

of deceased. Thus, from all the surrounding circumstance

and evidence, it can safely be inferred that that the death of

the deceased was suicidal in nature which took place within

07 years of her marriage.

19.Now the question which arises for consideration by this

Court is whether deceased Rajani must have been

subjected to cruelty soon before her death by the

accused/appellants and whether such cruelty or harassment

begin in connection with any demand of dowry.

20.Janak Yadav (PW-3), father of the deceased, has stated that

prior to the marriage, the accused persons had demanded

motorcycle and after marriage, the accused persons were

harassing his deceased daughter for not bringing

motorcycle in dowry. He has also stated that accused

Subhash Yadav (A-1) (husband of deceased) was

pressurizing him for his job nearby the house, however, in

para 10 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that his deceased daughter was admitted in hospital at

Bilaspur for delivery and the expenses of the delivery were

born by accused Bhagwan Chandra Yadav (A-2). He has

also admitted that his deceased daughter had done the

beauty parlor course and was running beauty parlor

14 / 23

business. This witness, in para 11, has also admitted that on

09.07.2012, accused Bhagwan Chandra Yadav had

deposited Rs.20,000/- in his SBI account bearing A/c No.

3186127308. He has also admitted in para 12 that accused

Subhash Chandra Yadav (A-1) was posted in Mulmula

Paddy Center as Choukidar. Thereafter, he secured job in

ITI, at Jashpur, and left the job of Choukidar. This witness

has denied this suggestion that on 13.07.2013 in the

marriage function of daughter of accused persons’, the

deceased had suffered mental attack and that he was asked

by the accused persons to get the deceased treated in

hospital at Bilaspur and that he told them that he would take

the deceased to Kabaddi Das Baba for treatment. Further,

this witness in para 13 of his cross-examination, has

admitted that the elder paternal uncle (Bade Pita) and Golu

Yadav, cousin of deceased of deceased Rajni Yadav had

also committed suicide by hanging themselves. He has also

admitted that Vidya Yadav, who was the sister of Rajani

Yadav, had also committed suicide by hanging herself. He

has denied that in the year 2009-10, deceased Rajani

Yadav had suffered a mental attack and had jumped from

the roof. He has also denied that as a result of her jumping

from the roof, the bones of her waist and leg had fractured.

He has admitted that Dr. Hemant Chatterjee, on the basis of

15 / 23

his report, had found a fracture in Rajani Yadav's leg bone.

He has denied that his daughter Rajani Yadav had suffered

mental attacks two or three times even at her matrimonial

home in Jashpur, and that he wanted to keep his daughter

and son-in-law at his house in Byas Nagar. Further, this

witness in para 14 of his cross-examination, admitted that

accused Bhagwan Yadav (A-2) has been serving in the

Agriculture Department at Jashpur for the last 25 years. He

has further admitted it to be correct that prior to the death of

his daughter Rajani Yadav, he had not lodged any report at

Jashpur Police Station. He also admitted it to be correct that

before the death of Rajani Yadav, he had neither convened

any meeting nor lodged any report regarding the alleged

harassment meted out to her. He admitted that he had

heard about the alleged harassment only over the telephone

and that he had neither spoken to nor met Naini Yadav (DW-

1), the elder daughter-in-law of the accused persons, in that

regard. He further admitted that he had not made any

enquiry or discussion with the neighbours residing adjacent

to the Housing Board Colony where his daughter was

residing. He has also admitted that he had not read the

contents of Ex. P/3 (inquest report) and was unaware of

what was written therein. He also admitted it to be correct

16 / 23

that the handwriting in the complaint (Ex.P-5) is not of his

handwring.

21.Jaanmati Yadav (PW-4), mother of the deceased, has stated

that the accused persons had demanded platina motorcycle,

however, in cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that she had not lodged any report in police station

regarding the alleged demand of motorcycle. This witness

has also admitted that she had not convened any meeting in

village regarding the harassment being meted out to her

deceased daughter by the accused persons. This witness

has admitted that the elder paternal uncle (Bade Pita) and

Golu Yadav, cousin of deceased Rajani Yadav had also

committed suicide by hanging themselves. He has also

admitted that Vidya Yadav, who was the sister of Rajani

Yadav, had also committed suicide by hanging herself.

22.Bhagwat Prasad Yadav (PW-5), uncle of deceased, has not

supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has

declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him, then

he admitted this suggestion that while giving his statement

to the police, he did not mention that his brother Janak (PW-

3) had told him that deceased Rajani Yadav's in-laws were

demanding a motorcycle.

17 / 23

23.Rajesh Kumar Yadav (PW-6), brother of deceased, has

stated that his deceased sister Rajani had told him that the

accused persons were demanding motorcycle but in cross-

examination, he admitted that neither any report was lodged

at police station regarding the demand of motorcycle nor

any meeting was convened regarding the harassment being

meted out to his deceased sister by the accused persons.

This witness has denied this suggestion that his deceased

sister suffered mental attack frequently, however, he

admitted this suggestion that his deceased sister was

associated with ‘Satyanij Institution’ and was doing beauty

parlor business.

24.Manoj Kumar Yadav (PW-8), cousin of deceased, has stated

in para 3 of his examination-in-chief that while staying at her

in-laws’ house, deceased Rajani was telling him from time to

time on mobile phone that his (this witness’s) father was not

able to give deceased a motor cycle at the time of marriage

and on this matter, accused persons were harassing the

deceased mentally for not giving motorcycle. He has also

stated that apart from mental harassment, accused persons

used to fight with deceased from time to time, this was also

told by deceased Rajani on phone, however, in cross-

examination, this witness has admitted that he neither told

anything to police about the harassment to deceased by the

18 / 23

accused persons nor lodged any complaint in this regard

before any platform or forum at social level. This witness

has admitted this suggestion that deceased Rajani’s elder

paternal uncle (Bade Pita), cousin Golu Yadav and sister

Vidya Yadav had also committed suicide by hanging

themselves.

25.Naini Yadav (DW-1) is the daughter-in-law of the accused

persons and wife of accused Sanjay Yadav (A-5), who has

supported the defence of accused that accused persons

never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her

parents and the deceased was never harassed by the

accused persons for demand of dowry.

26.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charan Singh

alias Charanji Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhan reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 454, held in para 11 as under :-

“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 the offence of dowry death

defined by Section 304-B of the Code, the

ingredients thereof are:

19 / 23

(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 willful 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

ora 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

in connection therewith is the common

constituent of both the offences.

27.The expression "dowry" is ordained to

have the same meaning in Section 2 of the

20 / 23

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”.

27.In the case in hand also, on careful consideration of the

evidence on record, testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution

witnesses and in the light of the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh (supra), it is clear

that the prosecution has only proved this fact that deceased

Rajani died within 07 years of her marriage under unnatural

circumstances but it has failed to establish the essential

ingredient of “cruelty or harassment soon before death in

connection with demand of dowry” so as to attract the

provisions of Sections 304-B or 498-A IPC against the

appellants.

28.The allegations regarding demand of a motorcycle rest

primarily upon the interested testimony of the deceased's

close relatives, father namely Janak Yadav (PW-3), mother

Jaanmati Yadav (PW-4), brother Rajesh Kumar Yadav (PW-

6) and cousin Manoj Kumar Yadav (PW-8). All these

witnesses admitted that neither before nor after the

21 / 23

marriage did they lodge any report with the police, convene

any community meeting, or make any complaint to any

social forum regarding the alleged demand of motorcycle or

harassment. PW-3 further admitted that before the death of

the deceased he had never reported any harassment to the

police, never discussed the matter with neighbours residing

near the matrimonial home of the deceased, and had only

heard about the alleged harassment over telephone

conversations. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the

prosecution allegation that the deceased was being

continuously harassed for dowry. The testimony of PW-3

also reveals several circumstances inconsistent with the

prosecution case. He admitted that when the deceased was

admitted to a hospital at Bilaspur for delivery, the expenses

were borne by accused Bhagwan Chandra Yadav (A-2). He

further admitted that accused Bhagwan Chandra Yadav had

deposited Rs.20,000/- in his bank account. These admitted

facts indicate cordial relations between the two families and

are incompatible with the allegation that the accused

persons were persistently harassing the deceased and her

parental family for dowry.

29.No independent witness from the village or neighbourhood

has been examined to corroborate the allegation of dowry

demand. The prosecution case, therefore, suffers from lack

22 / 23

of independent corroboration. Moreover, the evidence

brought on record discloses circumstances suggesting that

the deceased had a history of mental health issues and that

several close family members of the deceased i.e. her elder

paternal uncle (Bade Pita), cousin Golu Yadav and sister

Vidya Yadav, had committed suicide by hanging.

30.Further, the defence version receives support from DW-1

Naini Yadav, daughter-in-law of the accused family, who

categorically stated that no dowry was ever demanded and

that the deceased was never harassed on account of dowry.

Her testimony could not be effectively discredited in cross-

examination.

31.In view of aforesaid admissions and contradictions in the

evidence, the prosecution evidence does not inspire

confidence to prove that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her

death for or in connection with any demand of dowry, which

is the essential ingredient of both Sections 304-B and 498-A

IPC, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Charan

Singh (supra). Consequently, the prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the

appellants, and they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

32.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly,

allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and

23 / 23

the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted for the charges

under Section 304-B/34 of IPC & appellant Nos. 3 to 5 are

acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A of IPC.

33.The appellants are on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellants

are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of

Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of

sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount

before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a

period of six months along with 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 thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

34.The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be

sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for

compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

pekde