2024:CGHC:35724-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1 of 2011 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate District Korba (C.G.)

...Appellant versus

1. Deepak Agrahari, S/o Rambadan, aged about-30 years, 2.Rambadan, S/o Nathuni Prasad, Aged about 57 years, 3.Smt. Chandrakanti, W/o Rambadan Gupta, Aged about 45 years, 4.Roshan @ Chhotu, S/o Samadan Gupta, Aged about 25 years, 5.Prakash Gupta, S/o Rambadan Gupta, Aged about 27 years, All R/o Near Village Water Tank, Bankimongra, Korba.

... Respondents For State/Appellant : Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.

For Respondents : Shri Syed Imtiaz Ali and Shri Suresh Tandon, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgement on Board

12/09/2024 Per Goutam Bhaduri, J Heard.

1. Instant appeal is against the judgment dated 6/04/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora in Sessions Case No.33/2009 whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 498A/34, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

2. From the order sheet dated 28/08/2024 it is evident that respondent No.2 Rambadan died on 18/01/2022, which is not disputed.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant Urmila was married to Deepak in the year 2003. Thereafter, she joined her matrimonial home at Bankimongara. After 1 ½ months of the marriage, the allegations were clamped that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and fridge, washing machine, colour TV, camera and Rs.20,000/- cash were demanded. She was also subjected to physical assault. It is also alleged that while the garbage was being burnt, an explosion occurred and the allegation that the detonator was kept in such garbage, which was being burnt, thereby the complainant also sustained severe injuries. The father-in-law Rambadan since dead also suffered burn injuries. Thereafter, the allegation further was that since demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was driven away from her matrimonial home and was forced to stay at her parental home and thereafter the report was made. Learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the entire facts on record, acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the statement of PW-1 the complainant/wife shows that she has categorically stated that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and it is further stated that because the demands were not fulfilled, she was subjected to physical assault and cruelty. He would submit that cruelty was to the extent that the garbage when was being burnt, a detonator was kept by accused in it, which was meant to cause physical injury to the complainant/wife and the fact that the detonator was recovered, the blast has occurred because of the detonator, the offence under section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act would be made out. He would submit that statement of the other witness shows that they have categorically stated that the complainant was also not treated well while she was carrying pregnancy and was driven out to her parental home.

Cumulative reading of the statement therefore would lead to show that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. Accordingly, both the offence under Section 498A of IPC read with section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act would be made out and the order of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered with.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Deepak, Chandrakanti, Roshan and Prakash would submit that the statement of victim PW-1 would show that it contains a different contradiction and omission and she had taken different stand before the different forum. He would further submit that Rambadan, since dead, at the time when the garbage was being burnt, also sustained the injuries to save his daughter-in-law. This fact remains un-rebutted and the wife had made a different statement before the family court wherein she also instituted different