SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 34

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 
Rajani Dubey, J.
Ramji Patel S/o Shri Jhaduram Patel - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No.522 of 2005
Decided On : 17-01-2025 

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Pawan Kesharwani and Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. M. Asha, PL

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of dowry death, including evidence of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B - Dowry death - Conviction under Section 304-B set aside due to lack of evidence proving cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand - Prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 15, 16)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt, including evidence of cruelty or harassment. (Paras 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The deceased Shakuntala was married in 2001 and died on 07.04.2004 due to burn injuries. The appellants were accused of treating her with cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with dowry demands.

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of dowry death and whether the conviction was based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death in connection with dowry demands, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar in ST No.298/2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Shakuntala was married to appellant no.5 Surendra Kumar Patel in the year 2001 at Village Sothi. It was alleged that the in-laws of the deceased i.e. the appellants treated her with cruelty for pressing their demand for dowry, as a result of which deceased Shakuntala Bai Patel committed suicide. The incident was reported to the police station concerned, upon which a case was registered against the appellants and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned.

3. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in its support, whereas the defence examined two defence witnesses. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in the case in its true and correct perspective and succumbed to conjectures and surmises in convicting and sentencing the appellants. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that at the first instance i.e. at the time of postmortam, the relatives of the deceased were present and did not suspect anything against the appellants and it was only after a period of about two months, the the First Information Report was lodged. The learned Trial Court further failed to appreciate that even during inquest investigations, the witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, did not state anything against the appellants. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that that there was no allegations of any demand of dowry and the ingredients of section 304 (B) of IPC are not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs The State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 Live Law SC 341 and Shoor Singh and others vs State of Uttarakhand, reported in MANU/SC/1036/2024

5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 304-B of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 7 years.

8. It is not disputed in this case that the marriage of the deceased Shakuntala and the appellant No.5 were solemnized in the year 2001 and Shakuntala died on 07.04.2004 due to burn injuries.

9. Banshilal Patel (PW-1), father of the deceased, and Sukhbai (PW- 2), mother of the deceased stated that on 07.04.2004, they received information that Shakuntala got burnt due to outburst of cylinder.

10. Dr. B. Chourasiya (PW-7) stated that on 07.04.2004, he examined Shakuntala, wife of Surendra, and found that she was unconscious and she was 100% burnt. He referred the patient immediately for medical college, Raipur and gave his report

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top