Smt. Chhedana and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

The instant criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. /415(2) BNSS has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2025 & 10.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act-IInd, Ayodhya in Session Trial No. 291/2018, "State Versus Chhedana and others" arising out of case crime no. 109 of 2018 under section 498A & 304B/302 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Patranga, District - Ayodhya, convicting and sentencing the each appellants under section 304B of IPC for simple imprisonment of 09 years, under section 498-A of IPC for simple imprisonment of 02 years and imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional Imprisonment of 2 months and under section 3/4 of D.P. Act for imprisonment of 06 years and imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional Imprisonment of 6 months and all the sentences run concurrently

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, according to the prosecution version, the deceased. Meera, who was the sister of Ram Karan, the informant, was married to accused Rajneesh alias Jagannath,

¶14

CRLA No. 2188 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

five years prior to the incident. The accused persons, who comprise of the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased used to harass and torture her for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. On 07.07.2028, the informant received an information that his sister died. In fact, his sister was killed and hanged and her dead body was laid on the ground in the morning outside the home.

¶17

He next submitted that the appellants who are father-in-law and mother-in- law of the deceased have been falsely implicated in this case. There was a huge difference in the educational qualifications of the deceased and her husband due to which she used to remain upset and in a state of depression; she committed suicide by hanging herself.He also stated that this statement has been recorded in the statement of the accused person under Section 313 CrPC before the learned trial court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that there is no prior report of any dowry demand or harassment of the victim against the appellants. He further submits that in the post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is ante-mortem hanging, which is suicidal. On the basis of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it cannot be assumed that the death of the deceased was homicidal. In the post moretem report of the deceased no other injury except the ligature mark has been detected. The appellants are in no manner responsible for the unfortunate death of their sister-in-law. Even the learned trial court has accepted the fact that the deceased committed suicide. The appellants has undergone eight months imprisonment during trial and after conviction. They were enlarged on bail and there is no allegation regarding misuse of liberty during the trial. The appeal is not likely to be heard by this court in the near future due to a heavy backlog.

¶19

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that even in the case of suicide, the death of the deceased in other than unnatural circumstances will be assumed in view of the provision of 304 IPC. He also submitted that no reasonable cause has been shown in the statement of the accused persons for the unnatural death of the deceased in her matrimonial home. There are allegations of a demand for dowry against the accused persons, including the appellant,

¶20

CRLA No. 2188 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

which resulted in her unusual death.

¶23

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offenses, nature of allegations, role assigned to the appellant in the offense considering the period of undergone of the appellants, cause of death of the deceased showing in the postmortem report and the relation of the appellants with the victim and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶24

Let the appellants, namely, Smt. Chhedana and Chetram , be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶25

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

¶26

The appellants have undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶27

As regards fine, half of the amount of fine will be deposited by the appellants before their release from jail pursuant to present bail order, the remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency the appeal.

¶28

Order of Appeal

¶29

List the appeal in due course for hearing.

¶30

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶31

February 13, 2026 dk/

¶32

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Chhedana and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Chhedana and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile Delinquent a Thru. His Elder Brother/Legal Guardian R vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Ram Tirath vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Deepak Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mahendra Pal vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer, N.C.B. Lucknow Zonal Unit

Raoul Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another