HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App.No. 331/2001 SB; Hon'ble SIu-i JusUce R.L. Jhanwar APPELLANTS RESPONDENT Deepak Venaa and ofhers Versus State of Ctihattisgarh JUDGMBNT Post forjudgmcnt on'y.06.2009 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge MtSfct;«L,^,.-^>*«*aL)«E;,53TO,tK-;igS ;\ ,,^'SSBI it?^-. ^ f 'L ^r. y,/ ..•''i HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT mLASPVR Cr. APB. No. 531/2001 SB: Hon'ble Shrl Justice R.L. Jhaawar APPELLANTS RESPONDENT 1. Deepak Verma S/o Chuiuu Lal Verma aged about 40 years, R/o Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaon. 2. Sm.t. Deepa Verma W/o Chuiuii Lal aged about 66 years, R/o Dui^a Chowk, Rajnandgaon.I(Dead) 3. Rajesh Verma, S/o Chuimi Lal aged about 40 years, R/o Paras Sadan Dui^a Chowk, Rajnaadgaon. VCTSUS State of Chhatdsgarh fhrough P.S. Basantptu-, District Rajnaadgaou. CMMINAL APPEAL U/8 374(21 OF THB CODE OF CRIMIMAL PROCEDURE Aopearance: Shri V.K.Sharma, coiuisel for the appeBants. Shri Pradeep Suigh, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on23 .06.2009) R.L.Jhanwar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgnient of conviction aud order of seiiteiice dated 25th May, 2001, passed by fhe Sessions Judge, Rajnaadgaon (CG) ia S.T.No. 1/2001, whereby fhe leanued Sessions Judge, while acquittiu^ the appellauts under Scction 307/34 of the IPC, convicted and sentenced appeUaat No. l-Deepak Venna under Section 498-A of the IPC for 2 years R.I. & to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payiuent of fine to furfher undei^o R.I. for 1 nionth aad also convicted him uader III ,f"*\ p^lf' 'to<<'''.t k»»,s^' Section 201 offhe IPC and to pay a fine ofRs.3000/-, in default of payment offine to fdrther undergo R.I. for 3 inonths. The learaed Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced appellants No.2- Smt Deepa Venna (who is now dead) aad No.3- Rajesh Venaa under Section. 201/34 of fhe IPC and ordeied each of them to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, iu default ofpaynient offine to furfher undeigo R.I. for 3 nionfhs. The brief facts are that fhe complainaat -Saadhya Venna (PW-7) was inarried to accused/appeUaut Deepak Venna iu fhe year 1991. Accused Deepa Venaa was inofher-in-law aad Rajesh Venna is brother-iu-law (Jetl^ of Saadhya Verma. Aflber inarriage aU the accused persous started treating the coiaplainant with cruelty on account ofdeiuand ofdowiy of Rs. IVz lacs. On the date of iacident Sandhya asked her husband-Deepak Veniia for soine inoney. On this, he got aunoyed aud told her to bring nioney fiTom. her fafher aad thereafter he poured kerosene ofl on her body and Ught a uiatch stick and set her on fire, as a resiilt of which, Saadhya received bum uijuries to fh.e extent of 55 %. Aflter receiving bum uijuries, fhc accused/appeUaats did uot take her to fhe hospital even fhey did not report the matter to the PoUce. They started treatmg the com.plauiaat at hoine. Wheu father of the coinplauiant (PW- 9) - Jagdaiuba Sahay N^am- caine to kuow about this incident, he nished to Rajnaadgaon wifh his daughter- ia-law (son's wife)- Mauju aad after reaching fhere he saw fhat his daughter was tyiug on bed in biunt condition. He iiiuaediatcty reported the matter to the PoUce and fhereafter Saadhya was adiuitted to fhe hospital. The case was registered aad inatter was iavestigated. After coiapletion of fhe iavestigation, chai^e sheet was filed before the CIiief Judicial Magistrate, Rajxiandgaou, who ia tum committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Rajnandgaon for trial. The Sessions Judge fi-anied charges under Sections 498-A, 307, 2D1<^4 of fhe IPC agam.st fhe appeUaats. AppeBants demed fhe 'y^ sgf^ 't..<-li'" is;^wsRy'i^ °> charges and submitted Chat they are innocent and have been. falsely impUcated ia fbis case. Afier appreciation of the evidence on record aad hearfng fhe cottnsel for respective parties, the learaed Sessions Judge convicted aad sentenced the appellants Deepak Verma, Deepa Vercua and Rajesh Verma as mentioned above. During the peudency of fhe appeal, appeUant No.2- Deepa Venna died; therefore, fhe appeal to that extent has been abated. I have heard leamed couasel for bofh fhe parties at length and have also perused the record. Coiaplaniaat Saadhya Venaa (PW-7), her lafher Jabdaniba Sahay Nigam (PW-9) aad brother - Rakesh N^am. (PW-12), who are inaterial witaesses in this case, have turaed hostile. They did not support the case of prosecution. On the other hand, Sandhya Vcrma (PW-7), who is a Law graduate and Lawycr, has ckarly deposed that she was cookii^; food on the Stovc (kerosene oil stove). The Stove caught fire, due to which, her cloths caught fire and she received bum iajuries. She was treated by her father-ia- law Chumiilal Verma and Pyarelal. She has stated that she has no coiiiplauit wifh her inother-ia-law, brofher-ia-law {Jetfi^ and husband. The iaam.witn.ess-PW-9 -Jagdamba Sahay Nj^ani, fa.fher of the complainant, who reported the inatter to the Pollce, has denied aB fhe questions of cruelty in his deposition. Rest of the witaesses did not depose about coiumission of cruelly by the appeUaats agamst fhe coinplaiaant Sandliya Verma (PW-7). On the other haad, one of the witnesses, PW-12- Rakesh Nigara, brofher of tbe coinplainant has deposed fhat 'wqT wf sft? ^Ira> ytf -^ ^N STB^ ^NEF ^ gfr? ^ ^aftl" The trial Court has convicted aad sentenced fhe appellants under Sections 498-A and 201 of fh.e IPC only on fhe foUowing statemeut of PW-7 4 "^ 3f|il^<wji"i is is? gisf-ii q5t aft fe ^ ^•K-{ ^ W ^ uipf sfr? ^i ^diu) ^?gr t 4^ ^Rp ^"ftdld ^(W q)^ st , ^T?? rfellur •i^t <fr'!<<!^ ^T (ftllRRT ^ff ^T ufl<l'll 1" * Considermg fhe facts aiid circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that fhere is no evidence iu ttiis case to itaplicate the appellants ia the crune under Sections 498-A aad 201/34 of the IPC. It is clear that the appeUants did not treated fhe coniplamaat with cruelly, fherefore, the conviction aad sentencc passed ^ainst the appeUants oiily on suniuse aad conjecture, caimot be sustained aud fhe samc deserved to be set aside. In fhe result, fhe appeal is allowed. The conviction aad sentence awarded to appeUaat No.l imder Section 498-A and 201 of the IPC is set aside. The conviction awarded to appeBant No.3 uader Section 201 of the IPC is set aside. The appeUants are acquitted of the charges leveUed against fhein. They be set at liberty, forthwith, /—~—~ c^,—• — - R.L. Jhanwar — Judge sunita