2026:CGHC:8012-DB Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI NAFR TIWARI Date:

2026.02.16

11:28:35 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2284 of 2024 Rajmoti Chauhan @ Baya W/o Hiralal Chauhan Aged About 48 Years R/o Devpur Chowki - Baya, Police Station - Rajadevri, District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Accused)

--- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station In-charge Rajadevri, District - Baloabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent CRA No. 57 of 2025 Vasudeo Chouhan @ Choti S/o Mahesh Chouhan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Deopur, Chouki - Baya P.S. Rajadeori, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.).

--- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Rajadeori District -

Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.).

--- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Advocate (In CRA No.2284/2024)

For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnskar, Advocate (In CRA No.57/2025)

For State/Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

13.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.2284/2024 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.57/2025 as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. Today, though the criminal appeals have been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01, applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants in both the cases, stand disposed of.

4. In these criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), the accused- appellants have assailed the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.29 of 2020 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Vasudev Chouhan and another).

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and has sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a further direction that in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

6. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, is that the deceased Anupama Chouhan was married to accused Vasudev Chouhan and was residing at her matrimonial home along with her husband and his family members, including co-accused Rajmoti (her jethani). The marriage was subsisting at the time of the incident, and the couple had children. On 09.05.2020 at about 10:00 AM, the incident in question is alleged to have taken place at the matrimonial house. According to the prosecution, while the deceased was preparing food in the kitchen, the accused persons, namely her husband Vasudev Chouhan and her jethani Rajmoti, poured kerosene upon her and set her saree ablaze with the intention to cause her death. As a result of the said act, she sustained extensive burn injuries. However, immediately after the incident, the deceased is stated to have informed certain persons that she had accidentally caught fire while lighting the stove. The prosecution case is that such statement was made by her under fear and anxiety concerning the future of her children and due to pressure or influence from the matrimonial side.

7. On 18.05.2020, complainant Neelambar Chouhan (PW-1), father of the deceased, lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Rajadeori alleging that his daugh