Partly allowed

Shankar Satpathi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Aug 2023CRA/1406/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant mother-in-law for dowry death (Section 304B IPC) due to insufficient evidence, affirming her guilt only under Section 498A IPC. Conviction of the appellant husband for both offences was upheld. Jail sentences for both were reduced to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; conviction of appellant 2 for Section 304B IPC set aside; affirming conviction for 498A IPC. Jail sentences reduced to period undergone.

Shankar Satpathi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.1406 of 2016

¶4

Shankar Satpathi, S/o Devnath Satpathi, aged about 24 years,

¶5

Smt. Suraj Bai, W/o Devnath Satpathi, aged about 49 years, Both are R/o Bhatti Para, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellants

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Smt. Surya Kawalkar Dangi and Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Anurag Verma, Panel Lawyer -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

9.8.2023

¶14

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.6 of 2015, whereby both the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment thereof, additional simple imprisonment for 1 month
Under Section 304B/34 of	Rigorous imprisonment for

¶16

¶17

the Indian Penal Code 10 years The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently

¶18

Case, in short, is that name of deceased is Basanti. Her husband is Appellant 1 Shankar Satpathi. Appellant 2 Smt. Suraj Bai is mother-in-law of Basanti. Marriage between Basanti and Appellant 1 was solemnised 1½ years prior to the incident. The incident took place in the intervening night of 3^rd and 4^th of November, 2014. According to the case of the prosecution, in the said intervening night, Basanti committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. Morgue intimation was lodged by her mother PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P2. Post mortem examination over the dead body was conducted by PW4 Dr. P.L. Patel. Post mortem report is Ex.P6. On the basis of morgue inquiry report, First Information Report (Ex.P11) was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 1 witness was examined in defence. After completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in first

¶19

¶20

paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the instant appeal.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that without there being sufficient evidence on record the Trial Court convicted the Appellants. As regards Appellant 2, it is argued that there is no evidence available on record to show that Basanti (deceased) was subjected to cruelty by her for demand of dowry. Therefore, her conviction for the offence under Section 304B IPC is not sustainable. It is further argued that so far as Appellant 1 is concerned, though PW1 Parvati Panda and PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar deposed according to the case of prosecution, PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar admitted the fact that an amount of Rs.30,000 was demanded by Appellant 1 as a domestic help. Therefore also, his conviction for the offence under Section 304B IPC is not sustainable. Alternatively, it is argued that if this Court arrives at the conclusion that the alleged offence is committed by Appellant 1 then also considering the fact that he has already undergone jail sentence of about 9 years out of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment he may be sentenced with the period already undergone by him. As regards Appellant 2, it is argued that she has also undergone jail sentence of about 2 years and 3 months. Therefore, if this Court convicts her for the offence under Section 498A IPC then she may also be sentenced with the period already undergone by her.

¶22

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶24

I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties and perused the material available on record with due care.

¶25

It is not in dispute that 1½ years prior to the incident of suicide, marriage of Basanti (deceased) with Appellant 1 Shankar Satpathi was solemnised. It is also not in dispute that within 7 years of the marriage Basanti died in an unnatural condition by hanging herself at her matrimonial house.

¶26

According to the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that after the marriage Basanti (deceased) was subjected to cruelty by both the Appellants for demand of dowry of Rs.30,000 – 40,000. Conviction of the Appellants is mainly based on the statements of PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar, mother of the deceased and PW1 Parvati Panda, aunty of the deceased. Both these witnesses have admitted the fact that marriage of Basanti with Appellant 1 Shankar was performed in the programme organised under the Chief Minister Kanyadan Scheme. Both these witnesses have also admitted the fact that at the time of marriage no dowry was given nor was demanded.

¶27

PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar, mother of the deceased, in her Court

¶28

¶29

statement, deposed that whenever Basanti (deceased), after her marriage, visited her maternal house, she told her that quarrels were being done with her by the Appellants and she was not being given food properly. The Appellants were also telling her that a loan of Rs.30,000 – 40,000 was raised at the time of marriage and she should bring that amount. This witness further deposed that 1 month prior to the incident of suicide, Basanti had told her that the Appellants had committed marpeet with her for cooking food. According to this witness, at that time, Basanti lived with her for about 15 days. Thereafter, when Appellant 1 Shankar came to take Basanti back, at that time, he made a demand of Rs.30,000 – 40,000 for making refund to someone against some loan. In paragraph 8 of her cross-examination, this witness again made similar statement.

¶30

PW1 Parvati Panda, aunty of the deceased also deposed that 1 month prior to the incident of suicide, when Basanti (deceased) had come to her maternal house, at that time, she had told this witness that the Appellants had committed marpeet with her for cooking food. This witness further deposed that after the marriage Appellant 1 had been making demand of Rs.30,000 – 40,000 from Basanti and 15 days prior to the incident, when Appellant 1 had come to the maternal house of Basanti to take her back, at that time also, he had

¶31

¶32

demanded Rs.30,000 – 40,000 from PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar, mother of Basanti. Both PW2 and PW1 remained firm during their cross-examination.

¶33

On a minute examination of the above statements of PW2 Smt. Fulkunwar and PW1 Parvati Panda, it is clear that after the marriage both the Appellants subjected Basanti to cruelty and committed marpeet with her for demand of dowry. Both these witnesses have not made any allegation against Appellant 2 Smt. Suraj Bai regarding demand of dowry. The entire allegation regarding demand of dowry is made against Appellant 1 Shankar Satpathi only. Considering the above evidence, conviction of Appellant 2 for the offence under Section 304B IPC is not sustainable. However, the offence under Section 498A IPC is duly proved against her. As regards Appellant 1 Shankar, there is sufficient evidence available on record on the basis of which the Trial Court has rightly convicted him for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Hence, I affirm the conviction of Appellant 1 Shankar for both the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. I also affirm the conviction of Appellant 2 Smt. Suraj Bai for the offence under Section 498A IPC. However, she is acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 304B IPC.

¶34

As regards sentence part, considering the fact that Appellant 1

¶35

¶36

Shankar has already undergone jail sentence of about 9 years out of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and Appellant 2 Smt. Suraj Bai has already undergone jail sentence of about 2 years and 3 months, no criminal antecedent is reported against them and presently Appellant 2 is aged about 55 years and Appellant 1 is aged about 30 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence of the Appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. The fine sentence imposed upon the Appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶37

Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent shown above.

¶38

Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel ) JUDGE

¶39

Gopal

Shankar Satpathi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Satpathi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Santuram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pravin Mishra Vs Topeshwar Verma

Vijay Kumar Wadhvani Vs Ramesh Kumar Khanna

Sunil Kumar Khairwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Mehar Vs State of Chhattisgarh