Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Santram Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC19 Feb 2020CRMP/407/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State of Chhattisgarh filed a Criminal Reference under Art 138(5) regarding an acquittal in a dowry death case. The High Court allowed condonation of delay but dismissed the CRMP, finding no evidence of dowry demand or cruelty to sustain Section 304-B IPC charges.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; Criminal Reference petition dismissed with no leave to appeal made out.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Santram Sahu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

CRMP No. 407 of 2020

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 407 of 2020

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Santram Sahu S/o Dhanajiram Sahu Aged About 55 Years

¶10

Kedarnath Sahu S/o Santram Sahu Aged About 22 Years

¶11

Surjabai Sahu W/o Santram Sahu Aged About 50 Years

¶12

All are residents of Village Seldeep, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG)

¶13

4. Smt. Tanuja Sahu D/o Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bharda Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner/State

¶16

Mr. Chitrendra Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶17

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

¶18

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Chourdiya

¶19

Order On Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶20

19/2/2020

¶21

Heard on IA No.1, an application for condonation of delay in

¶22

filing the CRMP.

¶23

¶24

CRMP No. 407 of 2020

¶25

On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶26

Also heard on admission.

¶27

The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 304-B/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 17.9.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Sessions Case No.58/2018.

¶28

Deceased Malwantin Bai was married with accused No.2 Kedarnath Sahu on 13.3.2018. She died of suspected poisoning on 26.7.2018. It was alleged that the accused persons were committing cruelty for demand of dowry, therefore, the deceased committed suicide.

¶29

PW-18 Hiraudi Sahu, mother of the deceased, would admit that there was no demand of dowry before marriage although the accused persons demanded one Godrej Almirah after marriage, which was fulfilled immediately. She further admits in para 8 of her cross-examination that the accused persons have never demanded dowry directly nor any villager informed them that the accused persons have murdered the deceased. Deceased's father PW-19 Pyariram Sahu has also not made any significant statement proving demand of dowry either before or soon after the marriage.

¶30

In the absence of any demand of dowry or direct evidence for commission of cruelty in connection with such demand, the

¶31

¶32

CRMP No. 407 of 2020

¶33

ingredients of offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not available.

¶34

No case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.

¶35

The CRMP is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/- Sd/-

¶37

( Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge

¶38

Shyna

State of Chhattisgarh v. Santram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Santram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Kishore Awadhiya Vs Devnarayan Awadhiya

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Pramod Das @ Appu

Smt.parvati Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kaptan Singh Jatav

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sumatlal Kujur

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Haider Ali