Dismissed

Smt.parvati Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Feb 2020ACQA/8/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the bail appeal filed by the father-in-law of the deceased, who sought conviction for abetment to commit suicide (IPC 306). The court quashed the appeal at the motion stage, noting the acquittal of the three respondents under dowry death provisions was final and the prosecution case against the appellant was weak.

What did the court decide?

Appeal by the father-in-law dismissed at the motion stage.

Smt.parvati Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

ACQA No. 8 of 2013

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 8 of 2013

¶6

Smt.Parvati Dewangan W/o Late Shri Shatrughan Dewangan Aged About 53 Years R/o Chandrapur, Poilce Station and Post OfÏce, Chandrapur, Tah. Dabhara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. 495692

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station, Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. 495692

¶10

Maya Ram Dewangan S/o Shiv Prasad Dewangan Aged About 73 Years

¶11

Smt. Purnima W/o Het Ram Dewangan Aged About 39 Years

¶12

Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Mayaram Aged About 67 Years

¶13

Respondent No.2 to 4 are R/o Dewanganpara Chandrapur, Police Station and Post OfÏce Chandrapur, Tah. Dabhara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. 495692 (wrongly mentioned as P.S. Chandrapur)

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Appellant Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent /State Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶16

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

¶17

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Chourdiya

¶18

Order on Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶19

18/2/2020

¶20

Under the impugned judgment dated 14.8.2012 passed by the

¶21

Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in

¶22

¶23

ACQA No. 8 of 2013

¶24

Sessions Case No.253/2011, accused No.1 Suresh Dewangan has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, against which, he has preferred Criminal Appeal No.784/2012 and three other accused namely Mayaram Dewangan, S/o Shivprasad Dewangan, aged about 73 years (accused No.2), Smt. Poornima, W/o Hetram Dewangan, aged about 39 years (accused No.2) and Smt. Kamlabai, W/o Mayaram, aged about 67 years, have been acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B in alternative under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. The acquittal appeal is directed against this part of the judgment of acquittal.

¶25

Deceased Seema Dewangan, W/o Suresh Dewangan died of hanging during the intervening night of 12^th and 13^th of September 2011. They were married about 3 years prior to the date of the incident. In the FIR lodged by PW-2 Gangadhar Dewangan, brother of the deceased, allegation of commission of cruelty for demand of dowry was levelled against husband Suresh Dewangan (accused No.1) only.

¶26

The trial Court has also referred to the diary statement of Gangadhar Dewangan (PW-2), in which, he would make similar allegation against Suresh Dewangan (accused No.1) only. It has been observed by the trial Court that it appears, at a subsequent stage, diary statement was improved to make allegation against the acquitted accused, who are father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased.

¶27

Considering the material weakness in the prosecution case,

¶28

¶29

ACQA No. 8 of 2013

¶30

inasmuch as, the FIR, merg information and the possible addition/interpolation in the diary statement(s) containing allegation against the acquitted accused, it appears, the trial Court's finding while acquitting accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 is a probable view in the matter.

¶31

Moreover, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused under Section 304-B in alternative under Section 302 of IPC, against which, the acquittal appeal has not been preferred either by the State or by the present appellant. Thus, the finding that the deceased did not die dowry death has now attained finality.

¶32

If there was no dowry death only such accused can be convicted for causing abetment to commit suicide against whom there is prima facie material in the record.

¶33

It has come in the evidence that on the date of the incident, it was accused Suresh Kumar Dewangan, who had assaulted the deceased pursuant to a dispute and in the said incident, the present acquitted accused persons (respondents 2 to 4 herein) have not participated.

¶34

In the above view of the matter, the acquittal appeal has no substance, it fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/-

¶35

( Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge

¶36

Shyna

Smt.parvati Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.parvati Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Vs State

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Devprasad Nishad

Ranjit Thakur @ Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nand Kishore Awadhiya Vs Devnarayan Awadhiya

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Pramod Das @ Appu

Vaibhav Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh