IN TOE H'JBH CCURT OF MAfflYA ffiADE AT JABAl.RJB Appeal No. !ixj|e Bench (r'rimmsR. ni', a9ed 'ab6u:E"'45 /,. Bhagoli son APPELL.WT P.S. pandariya ,WPEA__UNDcR_ SECTI<N_ 374(2) _ PI WE CODB_pF,CBIMIN.*tt. PROCEBJRE RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:42:30 +0530 .,:":.;. '"*<»- ,{j /' _ <9l ,lji &. .-<;s"S^; I 1 g fi .^'' "!e^ ^ .0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1993. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Bhagoli son of Khajau Satnami. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Sarafraj Khan counsel for appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIWIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (03.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.3.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Link Court Mungeli in Sessions Trial No. 337/1990 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of merg intimation (Ex. P-6A) dated 22.3.1990, FIR (Ex. P-8) was registered against the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. It is alleged that marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized about 20 years prior to the date of incident i.e. 20.3.1990 and as the appellant used to suspect her fidelity, she was being harassed and meted out cruelty at his hands. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. / / L ^ Vascs^ 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that one day prior to the date of incident the deceased had left the house of the appellant and was found in the hospital at Kawardha after she had consumed some poisonous substance. He submits that even if the entire case ofthe prosecution is taken as it is, no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the appellant. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment. 8. Siyaram (PW-1) - the brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that marriage of the deceased with the appellant was performed 20 years prior to the date of incident. According to this witness, he was informed by the deceased regarding her having been subjected to cruelty by the appellant for demand of money. hle has stated that the deceased had informed him that the appellant used to suspect her fidelity and only because of this reason she has committed suicide. He has further stated that when the deceased was missing, the accused/appellant had informed him to this effect. Sukhi Ram (PW-2) - the father of the deceased has also stated that the appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased. Faguram (PW-4) the nephew of the accused/appellant has not supported the case of the prosecution and thus has been declared hostile. Investigating Officer, Bal Singh Netam (PW-8) has however supported the case ofthe prosecution. 9. The aforesaid discussion derived from the evidence available on record does not indicate any specific allegation to have been made by any of the witnesses leading this Court to form an opinion that the appellant ever subjected her to cruelty to such an extent that -3 the deceased was forced to take the extreme step at the cost of her life. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant had taken place 20 years before the date of incident and during this long span of time she never lodged any such report against her husband. Not even a single witness has come forward with the direct allegation attracting the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC which can prompt the judicial conscience to uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 17.3.1993 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He be set free if not wanted in any other case. -——-— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge