1 / 17

2026:CGHC:1928

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

16.10.2025 13.01.2026 -- 13.01.2026

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 994 of 2007

Judgment Reserved on : 16.10.2025

Judgment Delivered on : 13.01.2026

 Uday Bharti, S/o Bitthal Bharti, aged about 30 years, R/o

Garden Chowk, Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

 State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station –

Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

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

2 / 17

(C A V Judgment)

Per Rajani Dubey, J

1.This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentenced dated 29.10.2007 passed

in Session Trial No. 73/2007, whereby the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) has

convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

Under Section 304(B) of IPCR.I. for 07 years and to pay

fine of Rs.500/-, in default

of payment of fine amount

to undergo additional R.I.

for 02 months.

Under Section 498(A) of IPCR.I. for 03 years and to pay

fine of Rs.500/-, in default

of payment of fine amount

to undergo additional R.I.

for 02 months.

2.Admitted facts of the case is that marriage of present

accused/appellant Uday Bharti was solemnized with

deceased Seema and they were living as husband & other

acquitted accused persons namely Rampyari and Shanta

3 / 17

Bharti were mother and brother of accused/appellant Uday

Bharti, respectively.

3.The prosecution story leading to conviction of the

accused/appellant is that accused/appellant and his

deceased wife Seema were living in a rented house in

Balodabazar. On the date of incident, accused/appellant

Uday Bharti had gone out for work and when he came at

morning after completing his work, he saw that his wife

Seema was hanging with noose and she was died.

Thereafter, the accused/appellant informed the incident to

his landlord, then his landlord Krishna Kumar lodged the

merg intimation in police station Balodabazar vide Ex.P-11.

The incident was also informed to the parents fo deceased

Seema and after their arrival, on 06.11.2006, inquest on the

body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-3 and dead body

was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital,

Balodabazar vide Ex.P-8-B, where Dr. P.K. Tiwari (PW-8)

conducted postmortem examination on the body of

deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-8 noticing

following injuries/symptoms :-

(i)Rigor mortis present,

(ii)A ligature mark around the neck elongated

towards right side in the size of 3cm x 31”.

(iii)Tongue protruded, bitten up between teeth.

4 / 17

(iv)Salivary trickle stain was present from left

angle of mouth to left mammary region.

(v)A ligature mark of chunari cloth with slightly

knot length of circle was 31”.

The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death of

deceased to be asphyxia due to hanging and the death was

suicidal in nature.

4.Pieces of letter written by the deceased were seized vide

Ex.P-4. Viscera of deceased was seized vide Ex.P-7.

Thereafter, on 09.11.2006, Dhaneshwari Bai (PW-1), mother

of deceased Seema, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) in

police station alleging therein that accused/appellant – Uday

Bharti and other acquitted accused persons namely

Rampyari and Shanta Bharti used to harassed her

deceased daughter for demand of dowry and used to say

her daughter to bring cash and jewellery & used to assault

her. It was also alleged in the complaint that

accused/appellant Uday Bharti demanded Rs.10,000/- over

phone and told to take back deceased Seema if the amount

is not given, thereafter, the mother of deceased had given

Rs.10,000/- to her son-in-law, the appellant. It has been also

alleged in the complaint that when deceased Seema met

with an accident, appellant Uday Bharti had also demanded

cash for medical expenses of the deceased, which she had

also given to the appellant. Complainant Dhaneshwari Bai

5 / 17

(PW-1) also made appellant Uday Bharti understand and

express her inability to give cash owing to her poor financial

condition but despite this, the accused/appellant continued

to harass the deceased for demand of dowry and because

of the continuous harassment, her deceased daughter

committed suicide.

5.On the basis of aforesaid complaint (Ex.P-1), an FIR (Ex.P-

12) was registered against the accused/appellant and other

acquitted co-accused persons for the offence punishable

under Sections 498-A and 304-B and 201 of IPC. The

statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section

161 of Cr.P.C. After due investigation, charge sheet was

filed against the appellant and other co-accused persons for

the offence under Sections 498-A, 304(B), 201, 34 of IPC

before the jurisdictional Court at Balodabazar.

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

framed the charges against accused/appellant and other co-

accused persons under Sections 304-B/34 or 306/34 or

302/34 of the IPC. The accused/appellant and other co-

accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

7.So as to hold the accused/appellant and other co-accused

persons guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as

12 witnesses. 03 defence witnesses were also examined by

6 / 17

the appellant in his defence. Statements of the

accused/appellant and other co-accused persons 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.

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

while acquitting the other co-accused persons namely

Rampyari and Shanta Bharti, has convicted and sentenced

the present accused/appellant as mentioned above in para

1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

9.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.

Learned counsel also submits that all allegations of dowry

demand and harassment arise solely from the statements of

the deceased’s mother (PW-1). There is no independent

7 / 17

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. Learned counsel further submits that payments

by mother (PW-1) do not prove dowry demand as it was

given for medical treatment of deceased when she met with

an accident. The mother’s payments of Rs.10,000/- and

Rs.7,000/- have no documentary proof linking him to any

unlawful demand by the appellant. No complaint was lodged

at the time of any payment and it is common in marriages

for parents to assist newly weds financially, and such

assistance cannot automatically be treated as dowry or

extortion without specific evidence of forced demand.

Learned counsel also submits that demand of dowry, if real,

would reasonably have triggered a complaint, mediation, or

intervention but nothing such happened in this case.

Learned counsel also submits that father Krishna Giri

Goswami (PW-4) has specifically stated in para 7 of his

evidence that whenever he used to go to the matrimonial

home of her daughter, the family members of her in-laws

was positive and they never demanded any dowry from him

nor alleged about substandard dowry articles. Learned

counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has failed

to consider that the chain of circumstantial evidence as

8 / 17

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 decisions of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias

Charanjit Singh reported in (2024) 13 SCC 649 : 2023

SCC OnLiine Sc 454 and The State of Uttarakhand Vs.

Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju @ Prem Prakash reported

in 2025 INSC 187.

10.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

accused/appellant be upheld, and the appeal may be

dismissed as devoid of merit.

11.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

9 / 17

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

learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 304-B

and 498-A of IPC against appellant Uday Bharti & under

Section 498-A against co-accused persons namely

Rampyari and Shanta Bharti and after appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while

acquitting co-accused persons Rampyari and Shanta Bharti

of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC, convicted the

present accused/appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A

of IPC.

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

deceased Seema was wife of accused/appellant Uday

Bharti, their marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2002 and

Seema died on 06.11.2006 i.e. within 07 years of her

marriage by hanging.

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

was suicidal and no cross-appeal was filed filed by the

prosecution against this finding and the learned Trial Court

acquitted the co-accused persons namely Rampyari

(mother-in-law) and Shanta Bharti (sister-in-law) of the

deceased of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC.

15.Now the question which arises for consideration by this

Court is whether deceased Seema must have been

10 / 17

subjected to cruelty soon before her death by her the

accused/appellant, husband and whether such cruelty or

harassment begin in connection with any demand of dowry.

16.Dhaneshwari Bai (PW-1) has stated that after marriage,

accused persons used to harass her deceased daughter

and demand money and this was informed to her (this

witness) by her deceased daughter over phone. She has

also stated that after marriage, on 4

th

day, they had gone to

the in-laws’ house of her deceased daughter to take her but

the accused persons denied to send deceased citing that

they have given scrap items in the marriage and not dowry.

She has also stated after one month, upon making

understand, the accused/persons sent the deceased. She

has also stated that deceased had told her that the accused

persons used to assault her on account of dowry and after

making her understand she sent deceased to her

matrimonial house. She has also stated that in 2006, her

deceased daughter had come to house for Diwali and told

that the accused persons were demanding Rs.1,50,000/-

but she had given Rs.7,000/- to her son-in-law (accused

Uday Bharti) on the day of Laxmi Pooja (Diwali) and on the

same day, they went to their home. Thereafter, she did not

meet her deceased daughter for 15 days and after that her

deceased daughter died after hanging herself. In cross-

11 / 17

examination, she has stated that first delivery of her

deceased daughter took place in her in-law’s house at

Raipur, and all the expenses were born by the accused

persons. This witness has first time stated to have given

Rs.10,000/- out of her saving from domestic expenses. This

witness has denied this suggestion that at the time of

incident, accused Uday was not in home. She has also

denied this suggestion that her deceased daughter aborted

the child without the consent of her husband, accused Uday.

She has also admitted this suggestion she did not lodge any

report even after her deceased daughter told him about the

harassment and she (this witness) self stated that she did

not lodge any report as the accused used to treat her

deceased daughter well. This witness has also admitted this

suggestion that no meeting whatsoever had taken place

between two families regarding the harassment/torture of

her deceased daughter. This witness had also denied this

suggestion that she lodged a false report against accused

persons due to grief over her daughter’s death.

17.Tameshwar Singh (PW-2), who is the brother of deceased,

has stated that his deceased sister was being assaulted and

tortured by her husband - accused-appellant Uday and

mother-in-law. In cross-examination, this witness has

admitted that his deceased sister lived well at her in-laws’

12 / 17

house. This witness has also admitted that the

accused/appellant never asked his deceased sister to bring

money in front of him.

18.Narendra Goswami (PW-3) is the brother-in-law (Jija) of the

deceased. He has stated that deceased Seema was

distressed in her in-laws’ house. He has also stated that

deceased Seema had told his wife that her (deceased’s) in-

laws were harassing her for dowry. In cross-examination,

this witness has admitted this suggestion that in his

presence, no amount/cash was given to accused Uday

Bharti by the mother of deceased Seema. This witness has

also admitted this suggestion that even after the deceased

told him about harassment for dowry, he did not discuss the

matter with the deceased's parents.

19.Krishna Giri Goswami (PW-4), who is the father of

deceased, has stated that his deceased daughter told him

that her in-laws used to harass her for dowry and when he

asked her (deceased) to tell them (in-laws’ of deceased), his

deceased daughter refused. In cross-examination, this

witness has admitted this suggestion that at the time of

marriage, accused Uday Bharti demanded T.V., refrigerator,

cooler, watch and chain & they gave all the articles in the

marriage but he admitted this suggestion that he did not

13 / 17

inform the police about this while recording his statement.

This witness has also admitted this suggestion that his wife

did not tell him about giving Rs.10,000/- to accused Uday

Bharti.

20.Chandrakala Verma (PW-5) is the landlord of accused and

deceased. She has stated that accused Uday and deceased

Seema lived well and she does not know what conversation

took place between the accused Uday and deceased

Seema and no one in the in-laws’ family of deceased told

her anything. In cross-examination, this witness has

admitted this suggestion of defence that accused Uday

Bharti used to come home drunk and due to this deceased

Seema was upset.

21.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Charan (supra), in

para 11 has held 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:

(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

14 / 17

(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 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”.

15 / 17

22.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 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

appellant Uday Singh. Though Dhaneshwari Bai (PW-1),

mother, Tameshwar Singh (PW-2), brother, Narendra

Goswami (PW-3), brother-in-law and Krishna Giri Goswami

(PW-4), father, have made general allegations regarding

harassment and demand of money & their testimonies suffer

from material inconsistencies, improvements and omissions.

Admittedly, according to the evidence of parents of

deceased, no complaint or report was ever lodged even

after disclosure by deceased Seema of harassment or

assault for demand of dowry by the accused Uday Singh

and his family members. PW-1 herself admitted that she did

not approach the police as the accused used to treat the

deceased well, and that no meeting was ever convened

between the two families regarding any alleged cruelty.

Further, PW-2 categorically admitted that the deceased was

living well at her matrimonial home and that no demand of

16 / 17

money was ever made in his presence. That apart, PW-3

also admitted that he neither witnessed any payment of

money nor informed the parents of the deceased about the

alleged dowry harassment. Furthermore, PW-4 admitted

that the alleged demand of articles at the time of marriage

was never disclosed to the police and that he had no

knowledge of any monetary payment allegedly made by

PW-1, wife of PW-4. Significantly, PW-5, who is the landlord

of accused Uday and deceased Seema, and the

independent witness in the case, stated that the deceased

and the appellant were living normally, and the only

circumstance brought on record was that the appellant used

to consume alcohol due to which the deceased was upset,

which by itself does not constitute cruelty for dowry demand

as contemplated under law.

23.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 appellant 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

17 / 17

appellant Uday Singh, and he is entitled to the benefit of

doubt.

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

allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and

the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections

304-B and 498-A of IPC.

25.The appellant is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of

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

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/- 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 appellant on receipt of

notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

26.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