2025:CGHC:5738-DB Digitally signed by AFR BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

2025.02.05

10:34:14 +0530 Criminal Appeal No. 1558 of 20 19 [Arising out of judgment dated 14.10.2019, passed in Sessions Case No.123 of

2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Sudhir Mahana & 02 others), by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, District Raigarh (C.G.)]

1. Sudhir Mahana, Son of Dharnidhar Mahana, aged about 34 years, 2. Dharnidhar Mahana [died and deleted as per CO dt.

07.01.2025], 3. Shakuntla, Wife of Dharnidhar Mahana, aged about 65 years, [All Resident of Pusour, Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh)] ---- Appellants (In Jail)

Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per: Ramesh Sinha, CJ

31 . 01 .202 5 (1) In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants are calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2019, passed in Sessions Case No.123 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Sudhir Mahana & 02 others), by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby they all have been convicted for offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2) Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.02- Dharnidhar Mahana has died and, accordingly, his name has been deleted as per Court order dated 07.01.2025. As such, this appeal stands abated against the appellant No.02 and remained sub judice in respect of the appellants No.01 & 03. Therefore, we consider this appeal only in respect of appellants No.01 & 03.

(3) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 13.09.2018, between 10:00 to 11:00 AM, in the house of the appellant No.1, situated near Jagannath Temple, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (CG), the accused-appellants herein firstly shared common intention with each other to commit murder of Pooja (wife of the appellant No.01 and daughter-in-law of the appellant No.03) for or in connection with demand of dowry and, in furtherance thereof, poured kerosene oil over the body of Pooja (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and set her ablaze, due to which, she suffered burn injuries to the extent of 83% and died during the course of her treatment in the hospital within seven years of her marriage, on 17.09.2018 and, thereby, the appellants are said to have committed offences under Sections 304-

B/34 of IPC.

(4) It is further case of the prosecution that immediately after the incident, on 13.09.2018 at about 02:00 PM, the deceased was first escorted to Community Health Centre, Pusour wherein she was medically examined by Dr. Rajni Nayak (PW-17) and, as per her MLC report (Ex.P/12), though she suffered 83% burn injuries, but she was stated to be in conscious state of mind. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to District Hospital, Raigarh for better treatment. During the course of treatment at Raigarh, on 13.09.2018 itself, between 02:50 PM to 03:15 PM, after having been certified by the doctor to be in fit state of mind to give statement vide Ex.P/18, the dying declaration (Ex.P/19) of the deceased was recorded by Executive Magistrate, namely, Leeladhar Chandra (PW-13), wherein she clearly deposed the names of the present appellants to be the authors of the crime by stating that on the date and time of the offence,