State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jeevanlal

1 - Jeevanlal S/o Ram Sundar Prajapati, Aged About 36 Years, 2 - Chandradeo @ Badka Dau Prajapati S/o Ramdayal Prajapati, Aged About 45 Years, Respondents No.1 & 2 both are Resident Of Village Kanjiya , Police Station Janakpur, District Koriya (C.G.).

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Appellant/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : None.

¶12

Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

20/08/2025

¶15

NARESHKUMAR Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate: KAMDE 2025.08.2018:48:24 +0530

¶16

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27/09/2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.51/2019, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 2005’).

¶17

2. According to the prosecution, the deceased-Rajni Bai has

¶18

2

¶19

committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil upon herself, as the respondents had passed remark of sarcasm (Tonhi) on her, owing to which, she felt humiliated and took such an extreme step of committing suicide and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P/15) was registered against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and after completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the concerned trial Court, after considering the materials available on record, framed the charge against them under Sections 306/34 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Adhiniyam, 2005.

¶20

3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the husband of the deceased, namely, Chhabilal was examined as PW-2 and from his evidence, it appears that on the said fateful day, he had gone to the forest along with his father-Ramkhilawan for collecting the mahuwa flower, where, he received an information from his brotherRajkumar that his wife (Rajni Bai) has burnt, owing to which, he and his father rushed to the home, where his wife was found to be burnt and was in a position to talk. But, he, however, unable to state as to how she has burnt herself. Likewise is the statement of his fatherRamkhilawan (PW-3) and mother Smt. Sukhmanti Bai (PW-4). It is to be seen further, as revealed from his (PW-2) statement that, at that particular time, his son Rajkumar and his wife-Boby was at home, along with the deceased-Rajni Bai, but neither Rajkumar, nor his wife were examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it.

¶21

4. It appears further from perusal of the record that a dying

¶22

3

¶23

declaration (Ex.P/12) was recorded on 07/04/2019 at 10:02 A.M. by the Executive Magistrate of District Koriya, when she was found fit by the Doctor to give the statement and, a bare perusal of it, would show that in the morning on the said fateful day, a dispute arose between the deceased and the respondents, as they were assaulting her in the name of “Tonhi Bhoothi”, when she was alone at home, who then poured the kerosene oil upon her and ablazed herself. It, however, appears that the alleged dying declaration was recorded in absence of the witnesses, nor the Doctor, who has given his opinion that she is fit to give the statement, was examined. That apart, the father of the deceased, namely, Balkaran (PW-15) has, however, stated that she was not in a position to talk when she burnt herself, nor has narrated anything to the said Executive Magistrate. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon her said dying declaration (Ex.P-12).

¶24

5. In view of such circumstances and, particularly in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it would be difficult to hold that the deceased has committed suicide because of the alleged harassment meted out by the respondents and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime.

¶25

6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶26

Sd/Sd/( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶27

Kamde

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jeevanlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jeevanlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Gupta, Vs Deepak Sharma

Karishma Diwan Vs Ganesh Sahu

Sevakdas Manikpuri Vs Smt. Dashoda Manikpuri

Shabir Ali Vs Shri Sunil Kumar Sahu

Ramadhar Bunkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prateek Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Rubina Sheikh