NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 987 of 2023  The State of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate Balrampur -Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus

1. Jautri Devi W/o Rajnarayan, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chunapathar, Police Station- Sanawal, District : Balrampur-

Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

2. Ravindra Kumar Gupta S/o Rajnarayan Gupta, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chunapathar, Police Station- Sanawal District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

3. Rajnarayan Gupta S/o Late Kewal Saw Aged, About 50 Years R/o Village Chunapathar, Police Station- Sanawal District-

Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicants (cid:1)

____________________________________________________ For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate ____________________________________________________

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

30.04.2024

1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate , appearing for the petitioner/State on IA No. 01/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the petition.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly IA No. 01/2023 is allowed and the delay of 65 days in filing the petition is condoned. Also heard application for grant of leave to appeal.

3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.11.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial Case No. 100/200 whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 304-B read with 34 and in alternate Section 302 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.04.2020 the informant Manoj Kumar Gupta gave merg intimation to the Police Station- Sanawal stating that the father-in-law of the deceased Arti Gupta namely Shri Rajnarayan Gupta came his house and narrated the incident that his daughter-in-law/ deceased Arti Gupta not opened the door, upon which he forcibly opened the door and saw that the deceased was committed suicide by hanging. Marriage of the deceased Arti Gupta was solemnized with non-applicant No. 2/Ravindra Kumar Gupta on 06.03.2018. After the marriage of the deceased, non-applicants tortured her, they used to harass the deceased that her parents has not given sufficient amount of dowry, food-items to the non-applicants. On account of that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, physically and mentally tortured by the non-applicants. On the basis of said complaint , FIR was registered against the non-applicants for offence punishable under Section 304-B, 34 and in alternate Section 302 of IPC.

(ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the non-applicants/accused were put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The non- applicants/accused adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as may as 12 witnesses in its favour.

(iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court, acquitted the non- applicants/accused of the aforesaid offence under Section 304-B and in alternate Section 302 of IPC vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

5. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate submits that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the non- applicants from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of complaint without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. The t