Chattisgarh High CourtState Of Chhattisgarh vs Jasmeet Singh Bhatia @ Sonu Bhatia And ... on 7 March, 2018Author:Ram Prasanna SharmaBench:Ram Prasanna Sharma1

                                                              NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       ACQA No. 153 of 2012

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt.
     Rajnandgaon C.G.

                                                      ---- Petitioner

                              Versus

   1. Jasmeet Singh Bhatia @ Sonu Bhatia S/o Amritpal Singh Bhatia
       Aged About 27 Years R/o Qrt. No. 22, Anupam Nagar,
       Rajnandgaon C.G.

   2. Duli Dewangan D/o Pawan Dewangan Aged About 24 Years R/o
      House Of Premlal Shrivastava, Heeramoti Line, Rajnandgaon
      C.G.

                                                     ---- Respondent




For Appellant/State            Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG
For Respondent                 None

        DB.:   Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra &

               Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma


                        Order On Board By

                      Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.7/3/20181. Heard.2. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated

      8.6.2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,

      Rajnandgaon in ST No.24/2011, wherein, the said Court

      acquitted respondent No.1 Jasmeet Singh Bhatia @ Sonu Bhatia

      for commission of offence underSections 304-Band306of IPC2and acquitted respondent No.2 Duli Dewangan for commission

   of the offence underSection 306of IPC.3. In the present case, the name of the deceased is Kulvinder Kaur,

   who was married to respondent No.1 Jasmeet Singh Bhatia @

   Sonu Bhatia on 20.06.2004. It is alleged against respondent

   No.1 that after marriage, he demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs

   from the parents of the deceased and on failing to fulfill the

   demand, he harassed the deceased soon before her death. It is

   further alleged against respondent No.2 Duly Dewangan, who is

   having illicit relation with respondent No.1 Jasmeet Singh

   Bhatia, that she instigated the deceased to commit suicide.4. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station and

   after investigation, the charge sheet was filed.              After

   completion of trial, the trial Court acquitted the respondents, as

   mentioned above.5. Learned counsel for the State submits as under :(i) Ravinder Kaur (PW-9) and Amarjeet (PW-13), who are

        mother and father of the deceased respectively, have

        categorically stated before the trial Court that the

        deceased was subjected to cruelty and was harassed for

        non-fulfilling the demand of dowry and therefore, the

        finding arrived at by the trial Court is not liable to be

        sustained.(ii) The deceased had stated to her relatives regarding ill-treatment by both the respondents but the trial Court has3overlooked the same and passed the order of acquittal in a

        very mechanical manner. The other corroborative piece of

        evidence was also overlooked by the trial Court and

        therefore, the finding of the trial Court is liable to be set-

        aside.6. Ravinder Kaur (PW-9) is the mother of the deceased. As per the

   version of this witness, after sometime of the marriage,

   deceased Kulvinder Kaur came to their house and stated that

   her husband (respondent No.1) is demanding Rs. 5 lakhs and has

   asked her that she should not return to his house without the

   aforesaid money. She further deposed that at that time, they

   gave Rs. 1 lakh to respondent No.1 Jasmeet Singh Bhatia and

   assured to give rest of the amount later. As per version of this

   witness, her daughter called her on telephone and told that her

   husband i.e. respondent No.1 Jasmeet Singh Bhatia has eloped

   along with respondent No.2        Duly Dewangan. She and her

   husband tried to convince the deceased that Jasmeet Singh

   Bhatia will return soon, but on the next day, they received

   information about the death of their daughter. Amarjeet (PW-13) is the father of the deceased. As per version of this witness,

   respondent No.1 demanded Rs. 2 lakhs for business purpose.7. Surendra Singh (PW-2) is the maternal uncle of respondent

   No.1. He deposed that no demand of dowry was made at the

   time of the marriage. He further deposed that since there is no

   custom of 'dowry' prevailing in their community and the

   financial condition of the family of the deceased was also not4good, they have made arrangements of the marriage and borne

   all its expenses and thus, prevented the other side to spend

   money in the said ceremony.8. From the flow of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is not

   established that any demand of dowry was made at the time of

   marriage.9. Definition of 'dowry' as defined underSection 2of the Dowry

   Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under :"2     Definition of 'dowry'- In this Act, "dowry" means
         any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
         given either directly or indirectly-(a)    by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
         marriage; or(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any
         other person, to either party to the marriage or to any
         other person,

         at or before (or any time after the marriage) (in
         connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does
         not include) dower or mahr in the case of persons to
         whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.Explanation II The expression "valuable security' has the
        same meaning as inSection 30of the Indian Penal Code."10. A plain reading of the above definition makes it clear that any

   amount provided by the parents of a bride to the other party for

   business purpose is not included under the definition of 'dowry'.11. From the evidence, it is established that both the respondents5eloped from the house since long back and therefore, there was

   no case for them to harass the deceased. Further, no complaint

   was made during the lifetime of the deceased for harassment

   and no medical report was submitted before the trial Court

   regarding physical violence on the deceased.12. The so called 'suicide note' seized in the case reveals that the

   deceased held responsible both the respondents for her death

   but it cannot be termed as dying declaration as perSection 32of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Statements made by mother,

   father of the deceased and other persons are based on what

   was informed to them by the deceased.          Evidence of these

   witnesses is hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is not received

   as relevant evidence.13. Since demand of dowry is not proved and harassment to the

   deceased is also not proved, presumption underSection 113-Bof the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked in the facts

   and circumstances of the present case. For establishing offence

   underSection 304 (B)of IPC, the prosecution is under obligation

   to pass proximity test. It has to be proved that there exist a

   proximity and live link between cruelty and death, but that is

   not the case here.14. Both the respondents have also been charged underSection

   306of IPC. For commission of offence underSection 306of IPC,

   ingredients ofSection 107of IPC i.e. abetment are to be

   established.6Ingredients ofSection 107of the IPC are that

              instigating a person to do a thing and "instigate" denotes

              incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action

              or to stimulate or incite to commit an act.15. There should be a clear mens rea to commit the offence underSection 306of IPC and there should be a direct or active act by

           the accused which lead the deceased to commit suicide.

           Intentionally aiding a person to do a thing also includes in

           abetment, but from the record it cannot be inferred that any of

           the respondents instigated or intentionally aided the deceased

           to commit suicide. Their very presence in the house is also not

           established.16. In view of the above, we are of the view that the arguments

           advanced by learned Dy. AG for the State, is not sustainable.

           The finding arrived at by the trial Court is well within its

           jurisdiction and is based on proper appreciation of the evidence.17. In the result, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby

           dismissed.Sd/-                                 Sd/-


                     Judge                                  Judge

             (Prashant Kumar Mishra)                (Ram Prasanna Sharma)




Shyna7