2026:CGHC:10095 NAFR Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.02.27

17:03:38 +0530 ACQA No. 169 of 2012 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate, Bemetara C.G.

...Appellant versus • Anil Sahu, S/o Krishna Murari Sahu, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Murta, PS - Navagarh, Distt. - Bemetara C.G.

.. Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent : None.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

26.02.2026

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant against the judgment dated 13.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Revenue District Bemetara, Civil District Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.11/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent- Anil Sahu, of the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased- Heeramani Sahu, was married to the accused/respondent about eight years prior to the incident. It is alleged that after the marriage, the accused/respondent subjected her to cruelty by assaulting her and taunting her on the ground that she belonged to a poor family, was illiterate, and was not suitable for him. It is further alleged that, being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment meted out by the accused/respondent, on 30.09.2011, deceased poured kerosene oil over herself and set herself ablaze. She was initially taken to the Community Health Centre, Navagarh, and thereafter referred to Mungeli for further treatment. During the course of treatment, her dying declaration was recorded by the Tahsildar (Ex.P-3), wherein she allegedly stated that her husband had beaten her, poured kerosene over her and told her to die, after which, she set herself on fire. Despite treatment, she succumbed to her burn injuries on 09.10.2011.

3. During the course of investigation, a merg intimation was recorded, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the accused/respondent. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-6 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post- mortem examination. PW-7 Dr. Suresh Ratre, conducted the post-mortem examination and submitted his report (Ex.P-8), opining that the cause of death was shock resulting from burn injuries. Statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation, and the accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-13.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the competent trial Court. The accused/respondent denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial.

5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and the evidence available on record. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence, particularly the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P-3), which clearly implicates the accused/respondent in subjecting her to cruelty and instigating her to commit suicide. Despite such cogent and clinching evidence on record, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala¹ has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the app