1

2026:CGHC:907-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

14.10.2025 07.01.2026 -- 07.01.2026

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1103 of 2014

Judgment Reserved on : 14.10.2025

Judgment Delivered on : 07.01.2026

1 - Tarun Kumar S/o Late Sitaram Thakur, Aged About 32 Years,

R/o Village Dhamki, PS Kawardha, Civil And Revenue District

Kabirdham Kawardha C.G.

2 - Mithla Devi W/o Late Sitaram Thakur, Aged About 55 Years,

R/o Village Dhamki, PS Kawardha, Civil And Revenue District

Kabirdham Kawardha C.G.

3 - Ku. Neelu @ Vinamrata D/o Late Sitaram Thakur, Aged About

25 Years, R/o Village Dhamki, PS Kawardha, Civil And Revenue

District Kabirdham Kawardha C.G.

... Appellants

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kabirdham,

Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.

... Respondent

2

For Appellants :Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate

For Respondent :Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

(C A V Judgment)

Per Rajani Dubey, J

1.This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2014 passed

by learned Fast Track Court of Additional Session Judge,

Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G., in S.T. No.09/2014 whereby

and whereunder appellants have been held guilty for

commission of offence and sentenced as described below :-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

Under Section 302/34

IPC

Imprisonment for life with fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, in default of

payment of fine amount to

undergo additional R.I. for 01

year.

Under Section 201/34

IPC

R.I. for 07 years with fine of

Rs.6,000/- each and in default

of payment of fine amount, to

undergo additional R.I. for 01

year.

Both the sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

2.The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the

3

accused/appellants is that complainant Bhan Singh Thakur’s

daughter, Pinky Thakur, was married to accused No. 01 -

Tarun Thakur, on 14.07.2013. After the marriage, the

deceased was allegedly subjected to taunts and harassment

by the accused persons on the allegation that she had

brought insufficient dowry. It was further alleged that

accused Tarun Thakur (A-1), who used to speak with the

deceased daily on her mobile phone prior to the marriage

and after the engagement, discontinued regular

communication after the marriage and thereafter maintained

only formal interaction with her. It was also alleged that

accused Tarun Thakur (A-1) demanded a sum of

Rs.70,000/- from the deceased on the pretext that he had

purchased land/plot at Raipur. He was also doubting

chastity of the deceased and repeatedly threatened that her

photographs would be circulated in Kawardha and that her

mobile call details would be obtained, whereby her entire

history would be revealed. According to the prosecution,

whenever the deceased visited her parental home at

Kawardha on festivals and family occasions, she disclosed

that the accused persons were harassing and pressurizing

her in connection with the demand of Rs.70,000/-. It was

4

alleged that in this manner the accused persons subjected

the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty and

ultimately caused her death by setting her on fire. It was

further alleged that thereafter the accused persons

attempted to conceal the incident by cleaning and tampering

the place of occurrence and, thereby causing

disappearance of evidence. On the information of

accused/appellant Tarun (A-1), merg No.46/2013 was

registered vide Ex.P-14. Inquest on the body of deceased

was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and dead body was sent for

postmortem examination to District Hospital, Kabirdham,

where postmortem examination was conducted by Dr.

Santosh Luniya (PW-8) and gave his report under Ex.P-13

noticing following injuries/symptoms :-

(i)Body was supine in position, eyes were

closed.

(ii)Kerosene smell was coming from body.

Tongue bite in between teeth.

(iii)Extensive burn except sole (foot), more

than 95%.

(iv)Cloths and garments were burnt and

adherent to the body.

(v)Both the legs and hands were semi flexed,

rigor mortis was present

5

(vi) Nasal froth was present. Skin was black in

colour and peeled off.

(vii)Some parts of the body tissues were redish

in colour.

The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death

of deceased to be shock due to extensive burn of

body.

3.Police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-10. Some part of burnt

skin, burnt wood, and empty box of kerosene were seized

from the spot vide Ex.P-12. On24.09.2013, complainant

Bhan Singh Thakur (PW-1) filed written report vide Ex.P-1,

based on which, after due investigation, an FIR (Ex.P-15)

was registered against the accused persons for the offence

punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 201, 34 of IPC. On

18.12.2013, Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-8. During

the course of investigation, complainant moved an

application (Ex.P-3) for submitting bills of purchased articles

in the marriage. The diary of deceased was seized vide

Ex.P-9.

4.After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the accused-appellants under Sections 302, 304-B,

306, 201, 34 of IPC ,to which the accused-appellants

6

abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.

5.After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court

framed charges against the appellants under Sections 304-

B/34 or 306/34, in alternate Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of

the IPC.

6.So as to hold the accused-appellants guilty, the prosecution

has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the

accused-appellants were also recorded under Section 313

of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances

appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded

innocence and false implication. No defence witness was

examined in this case.

7.The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the

respective parties and considering the material available on

record, has convicted and sentenced the accused-

appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence,

this appeal.

8.Learned counsel for the appellants respectfully submits that

the impugned judgment of conviction under Sections 302/34

and 201/34 of the IPC is contrary to the evidence on record

and unsustainable in law. The undisputed facts establish

7

that the marriage of deceased Pinky Thakur was

solemnized on 14.07.2013 and the unfortunate incident

occurred on 19.09.2013 at about 9:00 a.m. The Marg

intimation (Ex.P-14) was promptly given by appellant No.1

on the same day at 16:20 hours, clearly demonstrating his

bonafide conduct. At the time of the Marg, the parents of the

deceased were present, yet no allegation of cruelty, demand

of dowry, abetment or homicide was raised. Learned

counsel further submits that the prosecution case is entirely

based on the statements of Bhan Singh Thakur (PW-1) and

Kumari Bai (PW-2), father and mother of deceased

respectively, who have admittedly made no complaint either

at the time of Marg or immediately after the incident. The

written report was lodged belatedly on 24.09.2013 and the

FIR was registered only on 26.09.2013, without any

plausible explanation for such delay. Learned counsel also

submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident, no

memorandum statement, and no incriminating recovery

linking the appellants to the alleged offence of murder.

Independent witnesses, including Dhiraja Bai (PW-4),

neighbor, have not supported the prosecution case, while

Ramesh Sharma (PW-6) and Raiwan Das (PW-9) clearly

8

stated that at the time of the incident the appellants were

away for Ganesh emersion and none of them were present

in the house. Learned counsel also submits that medical

evidence completely rules out homicidal death. The

postmortem report (Ex.P-13) and the testimony of Dr.

Santosh Luniya (PW-8), unequivocally establish that the

deceased sustained 95% burn injuries, there were no

external or internal injuries suggestive of violence or

struggle, soot particles were present in the trachea, and the

death was due to shock caused by excessive burns, clearly

indicating a suicidal act. The doctor has specifically opined

that the nature of death was suicidal and not homicidal.

Further, the personal diary of the deceased (Ex.P-5), duly

proved through expert handwriting opinion (Ex.D-7), reveals

her mental state and categorical dissatisfaction with residing

in the village. Entries dated 18.09.2013, just one day prior to

the incident, clearly reflect her unwillingness to stay at her

matrimonial home in the village and her extreme emotional

distress, including expressions that she would either leave

or die. This documentary evidence strongly supports the

defence case of suicide for personal reasons, unrelated to

any cruelty or provocation by the appellants. It has been

9

also submitted that significantly the learned Trial Court itself

acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 304-B

IPC, thereby negativing the allegation of dowry death. In the

absence of any direct, circumstantial or medical evidence

indicating murder, the conviction under Sections 302/34 and

201/34 of IPC is wholly perverse. There is no proof of

causing death, no proof of destruction of evidence, and no

material to establish that the appellants had any role

whatsoever in the incident. Thus, In view of the above facts,

the accused/appellant may be acquitted by allowing the

appeal.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble

Apex Court in the matter of Nilesh Baburao Gitte Vs. State

of Maharashtra reported in 2025 INSC 1191 : 2025

Supreme (SC)1775.

9.On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported the

impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has

successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond

reasonable doubt on the basis of a complete and unbroken

chain of circumstantial evidence, as discussed by the Trial

Court particularly from paragraph 32 of the judgment. The

present case is admittedly based on circumstantial

10

evidence, and the law is well settled that where direct

evidence is not available, conviction can be founded on

circumstantial evidence provided the chain of circumstances

is complete and points unerringly towards the guilt of the

accused. In the present case, the Trial Court has correctly

appreciated the evidence of PW-01 to PW-08 and PW-12,

which cumulatively establish the necessary chain of

circumstances. The place of occurrence is the matrimonial

house of the deceased, which was in exclusive control and

possession of the appellants. The incident occurred within

the four walls of the house, and therefore, the appellants

were under a special obligation to explain the circumstances

under which the deceased sustained fatal burn injuries. The

prosecution has successfully proved the place of incident

through seizure memo Ex.P-12 and the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses, which clearly establish that

kerosene, burnt articles, and remnants of the incident were

recovered from the house of the appellants. Further, the

presence of the accused persons in the house and their

proximity to the incident has been duly established through

the statements of PW-01 to PW-08 and PW-12. These

witnesses have consistently stated about the matrimonial

11

life of the deceased, her residence in the house of the

appellants, and the circumstances immediately preceding

and subsequent to the incident. The Trial Court has rightly

relied upon their testimonies to conclude that the appellants

were present and had the opportunity to commit the offence.

It has been further submitted that the conduct of the

accused after the incident is a relevant circumstance under

Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has brought

on record material inconsistencies and unnatural conduct on

the part of the appellants, which strengthens the prosecution

case. The seizure of articles from the place of incident,

including kerosene container and burnt materials, further

corroborates the prosecution version. The Trial Court has

also correctly applied the principle that when an unnatural

death occurs in the matrimonial home, the burden shifts

upon the accused to explain the circumstances under

Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appellants have failed

to offer any cogent or satisfactory explanation as to how the

deceased sustained fatal burn injuries inside their house.

Such failure provides an additional link in the chain of

circumstances against them. The cumulative effect of the

circumstances proved by the prosecution particularly the

12

unnatural death of the deceased by burning, the occurrence

inside the matrimonial house, the presence and conduct of

the accused, the recovery of incriminating articles from the

spot, and the consistent testimony of PW-01 to PW-08 and

PW-12—forms a complete chain which leaves no

reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants.

The learned Trial Court has minutely examined the oral and

documentary evidence, assigned cogent reasons, and has

rightly arrived at the conclusion of guilt. The findings

recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence and

settled principles of law governing circumstantial evidence.

No perversity, illegality or infirmity has been pointed out

warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence is just, legal and well-

reasoned, and deserves to be affirmed.

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

11.It is apparent from the record of learned Trial Court that the

learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants

under Sections 304-B/34 or 306/34, in alternate Sections

302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC & after after appreciation of

oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court

13

convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 and 201/34

of IPC & sentenced them as described in para 01 of this

judgment.

12.The first question which arises for consideration before this

Court whether the death of deceased Pinky Thakur was

homicidal or not.

13.It is an admitted position in this case that deceased Pinky

Thakur got married to accused/appellant Tarun Kumar (A-1)

on 14.07.2013 and she died on 19.09.2013. It is also not

disputed that deceased Pinky Thakur died due to burn

injuries.

14.With respect to homicidal death of deceased Pinky Thakur,

we have examined the evidence of Raiwan Das (PW-9),

Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station – Kawardha. He has

stated that on on 19.09.2013, on the information given by

informant accused/appellant Tarun Kumar (A-1), he

recorded the merg intimation No.46/2013 vide Ex.P-14.

Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared

nazri naksha vide Ex.P-10. He has also stated that on

19.09.2013, he had seized pieces of burnt skin, pieces of

burnt wood and box of kerosene vide Ex.P-12. He has also

stated that after merg inquiry, on 26.09.2013, he lodged an

14

FIR being Crime No.346/2013 against the accused persons

for the offence under Sections 306, 304-B and 201/34 of

IPC vide Ex.P-15.

15.Dr. Santosh Luniya (PW-8) has conducted postmortem on

the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-13

opining the cause of death of deceased to be to be shock

due to extensive burn of body. In cross-examination, the

autopsy surgeon admitted that during examination of body,

he did not find any external or internal injuries over the body

of deceased as also any symptoms of pressing the neck of

deceased and mark of struggling. Further, in para 10, he

has admitted that he cannot tell that the death of deceased

is suicidal, homicidal or accidental. It is clear from the

testimony of autopsy surgeon that he did not opine about

the nature of death whether it is suicidal, homicidal or

accidental, as such, the statements of other prosecution

witness are significant for proper adjudication of the case.

16.In this context, we have examined the evidence of

Bhansingh Thakur (PW-1), father of deceased, who has

stated that on 14.07.2013, the marriage of his deceased

daughter was solemnized with accused/appellant Tarun (A-

1) according to Hindu customs. After marriage, when his

15

deceased daughter went to her in-laws’ house, from the 2

nd

day of marriage, accused/appellant Tarun stopped talking

with them and after staying for 02 day in village Dhamti, he

went to Raipur and his deceased daughter was in her in-

laws’ house. He has also stated that accused persons

demanded dowry from him and tortured his deceased

daughter physically and mentally.

17.Kumari Bai (PW-2) and Chandrika (PW-3), mother and

sister of deceased respectively, have also made similar

statement as has been made by father of deceased PW-1

that the accused persons demanded dowry and tortured the

deceased physically and mentally, but the learned Trial

Court, after evaluation of evidence, finds that offence under

Section 304-B or 306 of IPC has not been proved against

the accused/appellants.

18.In such circumstances, the foremost question which remains

for consideration by this Court is whether the death of

deceased was homicidal or not, and whether it is the

accused/appellants who have committed murder of

deceased Pinky Thakur.

19.Dhirja Bai (PW-4) is the neighbour of accused/appellants.

She has stated that the wife of accused/appellant Tarun (A-

16

1) died due to burn on the day of emersion of lord Ganesh.

She has also stated that she does not know that how the

deceased died or how she was burned. In cross-

examination, this witness has admitted that on the date of

incident, emersion of lord Ganesh was going on and all the

persons were going to see the emersion. This witness had

denied her police statement (Ex.D-5) on ‘A to A’ part that : -

“On 19.09.2015 at around 9-10 pm, she was in her house

and after hearing the cries of mother-in-law of deceased

that the the fire broke out, she went to her house and

saw that deceased was lying in burnt condition in

courtyard and she was died.”

20.Ramesh Sharma (PW-6) has stated that on the date of

incident, the emersion process of Ganesh was going on and

he was going for emersion/visarjan, at the relevant time,

there was commotion that fire broke out in the house of

deceased. He has also stated that after hearing the

commotion, he went to the house of deceased and saw that

the deceased was burning with fire and seeing this he went

to call the relatives of family members of deceased who

resides nearby and called the ambulance dialing 108. In

cross-examination, this witness has admitted this

17

suggestion of defence that when he reached the place of

occurrence, the accused persons were not present there.

He has also admitted that accused Mithla Devi (A-2) walks

solely as she was fat and was coming with 3-4 women and

he reached the place of incident first. This witness has also

admitted this suggestion that the PW-1 father of deceased

had told that he did not want postmortem of his daughter

and prepare for the cremation. This witness has admitted

that accused Tarun (A-1) was frequently saying that let him

(A-1) file the report and on this very issue, it took two and

half hours. This witness, in para 10 of his cross-

examination, has admitted that prior to the incident, accused

Tarun (A-1), his mother (A-2) and sister (A-3) were watching

emersion of lord Ganesh in main road with them and other

women were also present with them. He has also admitted

that accused Tarun (A-1) and his sister (A-3) were ahead for

watching emersion and thereafter the incident of fire took

place.

21.Motiram Sahu (PW-7) is the witness to the inquest memo.

He has admitted his signature on inquest memo (Ex.P-2),

spot map (Ex.P-11) and seizure memo (Ex.P-12). The

prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross-

18

examined him then he admitted this suggestion of

prosecution that the father of deceased was present at the

time of inquest proceeding and he did not tell about

harassment by the accused persons for demand of dowry.

This witness has also admitted this suggestion of defence

that the father of deceased wanted to have last ritual of his

deceased daughter without postmortem examination.

22.Sachin Dev Shukla (PW-10) is the S.D.O.P. This witness

has admitted this suggestion of defence that there is no

mention in the case about investigation on the point of

abatement of suicide and he self stated that witnesses had

told about cleaning the place of incident. He has stated that

he had inspected the place of occurrence but he cannot tell

that how many rooms were there in the house.

23.In the instant case, the deceased used to writ down his

feeling and emotion in diary, which was seized by police

vide Ex.P-5, P-05(1) to 05(10) and 06. A bare perusal of the

contents of the seized diary clearly established the fact that

the deceased was not happy with her marriage and she did

not want to reside in village.

24.In view of the testimonies of aforesaid prosecution

witnesses, it is clear that there is no evidence on record

19

regarding the abatement of suicide and the learned Trial

Court also recorded its finding that the prosecution has not

been able to prove the offence under Sections 304-B and

306 of IPC against the accused persons. Further, as per the

postmortem report (Ex.P-13) and the testimony of doctor

(PW-8) as also other witnesses, the homicidal death of

deceased has not been proved by the prosecution. The

autopsy surgeon (PW-8) has admitted that he did not

mention the nature of death in postmortem report (Ex.P-13)

whether it was suicidal or homicidal or accidental.

25.In the matter of Nilesh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held

in para 34, 35, 39 and 56 as under :-

“34.We are constrained to hold that, based on

the deposition of Dr. PW-6 examined by the

prosecution, a serious doubt arises as to

whether at all the deceased died a homicidal

death. The candid admission of PW-6 that in the

absence of ligature mark on the back side of the

neck hanging cannot be ruled out and the further

reinforcement that in strangulation ligature mark

should be present all around the neck lead us to

conclude that this is not a case where we can

safely opine that the death was by homicide.

There is no definite medical opinion and in view

of the considerable ambiguity in the evidence of

20

PW-6, death by suicide, cannot be said to be

completely ruled out. We are also reinforced in

our view by Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology (Twenty Third Edition) which states

that normally in case of strangulation, ligature

marks are horizontal or traverse continuous.

“Round the neck low down in the neck

below the thyroid…”

35.Added to this is the fact that PW-9, after

procuring the certificate from Vivekanand

Hospital, Latur has not only not exhibited it but

has simply stated that the investigation did not

reveal that the deceased suffered from

schizophrenia. What is that investigation, is not

forthcoming. A document produced by the

prosecution as part of the chargesheet pursuant

to the investigation though not exhibited can be

relied upon by the defence. In Ramaiah alias

Rama v. State of Karnataka

2

this Court held

thus :-

“14.…. Strangely, the High Court has

discarded the mahazar drawn by PW 8 by

giving a specious reason viz. it was not an

exhibited document before the court, little

realizing that this was the document

produced by the prosecution itself and

even without formal proof thereto by the

prosecution, it was always open for the

defence to seek reliance on such an

21

evidence to falsify the prosecution

version….”

36.….

39.In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra) this

Court was dealing with corresponding burden on

the inmates of the house to give cogent

explanation. The following is what this Court has

stated :-

“15.Where an offence like murder is

committed in secrecy inside a house, the

initial burden to establish the case would

undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but

the nature and amount of evidence to be

led by it to establish the charge cannot be

of the same degree as is required in other

cases of circumstantial evidence. The

burden would be of a comparatively lighter

character. In view of Section 106 of the

Evidence Act there will be a corresponding

burden on the inmates of the house to give

a cogent explanation as to how the crime

was committed. The inmates of the house

cannot get away by simply keeping quiet

and offering no explanation on the

supposed premise that the burden to

establish its case lies entirely upon the

prosecution and there is no duty at all on

an accused to offer any explanation.”

22

40.….

56.The Courts below have fallen into a

serious error in convicting the appellant on the

basis of the evidence on record. Not only the

tests laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda

(supra) have not been satisfied, recording the

conviction based on the material on record

would be disregarding the warning of Baron

Alderson, J. in Hodge, In re (1838) 2 Lewin 227

as reiterated in Hanumant vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71 about the caution to

be exercise in cases based on circumstantial

evidence :-

“The mind was apt to take a pleasure in

adapting circumstances to one another,

and even in straining them a little, if need

be, to force them to form parts of one

connected whole; and the more ingenious

the mind of the individual, the more likely

was it, considering such matters, to

overreach and mislead itself, to supply

some little link that is wanting, to take for

granted some fact consistent with its

previous theories and necessary to render

them complete.”

26.While dealing with the question where homicidal death is not

proved by the prosecution, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

matter of Chandrapal Vs. State of Chhattiasgarh reported

23

in 2022 SCC Online SC 705 held in paras 15 to 19 as

under:-

“15. In this regard, it would be also relevant to

regurgitate the law laid down by this Court with

regard to the theory of “Last seen together”.

16. In case of Bodhraj Vs. State of Jammu and

Kashmir; ( 2002) 8 SCC 45, this Court held in

para 31 that:

“31. The last seen theory comes into play

where the time- gap between the point of

time when the accused and the deceased

were last seen alive and when the accused

being the author of the crime becomes

impossible….”

17. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab; (2005) 12

SCC 438, this Court held that in absence of any

other links in the chain of circumstantial

evidence, the accused cannot be convicted

solely on the basis of “Last seen together”, even

if version of the prosecution witness in this regard

is believed.

18. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar; 1994 Supp

(2) SCC 372, it was observed that the only

circumstance of last seen will not complete the

chain of circumstances to record the finding that

it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the

guilt of the accused, and therefore no conviction

on that basis alone can be founded.

24

19. As stated hereinabove, in order to convict an

accused under Section 302 IPC the first and

foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is

the factum of homicidal death. If the evidence of

prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death

of the deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal

death could not be ruled out, in the opinion of this

Court, the appellant-accused could not have

been convicted merely on the basis of theory of

“Last seen together”

27.In the instant case, upon careful appreciation of entire oral

and documentary evidence, it is clear that the prosecution

has failed to establish the foundational requirement of a

homicidal death of deceased Pinky Thakur. It is undisputed

that the deceased died due to burn injuries; however, mere

proof of death by burns does not ipso facto lead to an

inference of murder. The postmortem report (Ex.P-13) and

the testimony of Dr. Santosh Luniya (PW-8) unequivocally

reveal that there were no external or internal injuries

suggestive of violence, struggle or forcible administration of

burns. Significantly, the autopsy surgeon did not opine that

the death was homicidal and candidly admitted that he could

not say whether the death was suicidal, homicidal or

accidental. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the

25

prosecution case of murder and, on the contrary, leaves

open the possibility of suicide, which has not been ruled out.

28.Further, the prosecution evidence, including that of

independent witnesses namely Dhirja Bai (PW-4) and

Ramesh Sharma (PW-6), clearly indicates that at the time of

the incident emersion of lord Ganesh was in progress and

the accused persons were not present inside the house.

PW-6 has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that

the accused persons were away watching the immersion

procession and were not present at the spot when the

incident occurred. The conduct of accused/appellant Tarun

(A-1) in promptly lodging the marg intimation (Ex.P-14) on

the very same day further fortifies the defence version and

negates any inference of guilt or attempt to screen

evidence. No incriminating recovery, no memorandum

statement and no circumstance linking the accused persons

to the act of setting the deceased on fire have been brought

on record. Equally important is the fact that the learned Trial

Court itself disbelieved the prosecution story relating to

dowry demand and abetment of suicide and acquitted the

accused/appellants of the charges under Sections 304-B

and 306 IPC. Once cruelty, dowry death and abetment

26

stand negated, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3,

being interested witnesses, do not inspire confidence for

sustaining a conviction for murder, particularly when their

allegations were conspicuously absent at the time of marg

and surfaced only after an unexplained and inordinate delay

in lodging the FIR. The diary of the deceased (Ex.P-5, P-

5(1) to P-5(10) and P-06), duly proved, clearly reflects her

mental distress and unwillingness to reside in the village,

lending substantial support to the defence plea of suicide for

personal reasons.

29.The law is now well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Chandrapal (supra) and Nilesh (supra) that the first and

foremost requirement for sustaining a conviction under

Section 302 IPC is proof of homicidal death. If the

prosecution evidence falls short of establishing homicidal

death and the possibility of suicide is not completely ruled

out, conviction cannot be founded merely on circumstantial

evidence or on the theory of “last seen together”. Section

106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of

its primary burden to prove homicidal death beyond

reasonable doubt.

30.In the present case, the chain of circumstances relied upon

27

by the prosecution is neither complete nor consistent only

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The evidence

on record, taken cumulatively, does not unerringly point

towards the accused/appellants and is wholly insufficient to

sustain their conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34

IPC. Consequently, this Court holds that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused/appellants - the husband (A-1), mother-in-law

(A-2) and sister-in-law (A-3) of the deceased, are therefore

entitled to the benefit of doubt.

31.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2014

passed by the Fast Track Court of Additional Sessions

Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.

09/2014 is hereby set aside and the accused/appellants are

acquitted of the charges levelled against them by extending

them benefit of doubts.

32.The accused/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

28

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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

33.The Lower Court records along with copy of this judgment

be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for

compliance and necessary action.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge Judge

pekde