Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Deepak Gupta & Sanjay Agrawal, JJ.
Arjun Prasad Chandrawanshi, S/o Fagu Ram & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
Dani Ram, S/o Gajanand Chandrawanshi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2002 and Acquittal Appeal No. 445 of 2010
Decided On : 23-11-2016
For the Applicants :Shri A.K. Prasad and Shri Rishi Mahobia, Advocates.
For the State : Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer.
For the Respondents:Shri Pradeep Singh, Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Demand of dowry – Acquittal of order – Jurisdiction - Undisputed facts are that respondent No.-2 was married to deceased and allegation leveled against accused persons are that immediately after the marriage deceased has expired in a suspicious circumstances as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry of Motorcycle Color T.V Ornaments etc – Therefore a charge-sheet under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons - Further prosecution story is that marriage of deceased with respondent No.2 had taken place in month of May-June and after marriage deceased had gone to her in-laws house where she was tortured physically and mentally in connection with demand of Motorcycle Color T.V., Ornaments etc – Held, From a perusal of the aforesaid provision and that in view of principles laid down in above mentioned case it is clear that mere omission in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC would not dies-entitle Court from examining the same unless accused was found to be misled by such error or omission – Now charges so framed by trial Court are required to be examined in order to entertain as to whether accused persons have been misled by such error or omission or would have likely to occasion into a failure of justice - A close scrutiny of aforesaid charges would reveal that neither the ingredients required under Section 306 of the IPC is there nor it was apprised to the accused persons – Thus it is a case where miss-trial was conducted by the trial Court. The offence which were framed and tried by the trial Court were only with regard to the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 of the IPC in which the accused persons have been acquitted – Therefore instead of recording any finding with regard to an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC it would rather be necessary for this Court at this stage to remit matter back to the concerned trial Court, i.e. the Second Additional Sessions Judge for framing charge under Section 306 of IPC and for its re-trial - Criminal revision allowed
Sanjay Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the parents of the deceased Chitrarekha under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) against the judgment dated 27/08/2002 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Mungeli in Session Trial No.200 of 2000, whereby, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The State Government has also questioned the propriety of this judgment while filing the appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., which is registered as Acquittal Appeal No. 445 of 2010.
2. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both these matters, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent No.-2 Narendra was married to deceased Chitrarekha and the allegation leveled against the accused persons are that immediately after the marriage deceased Chitrarekha has expired on 28.3.2000 in a suspicious circumstances as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry of Motorcycle, Colour T.V., Ornaments etc. Therefore, a charge-sheet under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 of the IPC was registered against the accused persons.
4. Further prosecution story is that the marriage of deceased Chitrarekha with respondent No.2-Narendra had taken place in the month of Jeth (May-June), 1999 and after the marriage, deceased Chitrarekha had gone to her in-laws house, where she was tortured physically and mentally in connection with the demand of Motorcycle, Colour T.V., Ornaments etc. Because of the alleged harassment, the deceased went back to her father's house twice, but at the instance of elder members, she returned back to her in-laws house. At last, when she returned to her in-laws house on 24/03/2000, but, was again tortured there, as a result of which, she expired on 28/03/2000 at about 4 p.m. by poisoning.
5. After receiving the information with regard to the aforesaid incident, the father of the deceased Narad Prasad, maternal grandfather Arjun Prasad Chandrawanshi with other persons rushed to her in-laws house where they found the dead body of deceased Chitrarekha in a suspicious condition. The maternal grandfather of the deceased, namely Arjun Prasad Chandrawanshi had lodged a First Information Report in the Police Station Pandatarai, based on which, a merg intimation was written by the police on 29/03/2000 and an offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against all the accused persons, who were husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased Chitraleka as the alleged incident had taken place within a period of seven years of the said marriage.
6. Respondents No.1 to 4 have not accepted the charges as framed and pleaded not guilty by submitting that they have been falsely implicated by the parents of the deceased in connection with the said crime.
7. In support, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses including father, mother, grandfather and maternal grandfather of the deceased Chitrarekha, while one defence witness was produced by the accused persons in order to establish their innocence in connection with the said crime.
8. After examining the statement adduced by both the parties, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 27/08/2002 has acquitted all the accused persons from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 of the IPC.
9. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid acquittal, the parents of the deceased and the State Government have preferred the instant criminal revision and acquittal appeal.
10. Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the parents of the deceased and Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer appeared on behalf of the State have assailed the judgment impugned by
