Dismissed¶48

State of Chhattisgarh v. Bodhan Ram Kuldeep

Criminal leave to appeal – acquittal

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2025CRMP/900/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC (DB, Bilaspur), 04.12.2025, CRMP No. 900 of 2023 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Bodhan Ram Kuldeep & 5 others): leave to appeal against acquittal under Ss. 304(B)/34 and 201/34 IPC rejected; interference in acquittal appeals limited per State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram (2022 SCC OnLine SC 984); benefit of doubt upheld for want of post-mortem/FSL reports, inconsistent causes of death, unreliable sole eyewitness, no cruelty proved proximate to death, delay in FIR.

What did the court decide?

None; leave to appeal rejected ¶48

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bodhan Ram Kuldeep — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; leave to appeal rejected

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the State should be granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband on 10.01.2023 in Sessions Trial No. 51/2021. +1 more

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents/accused cannot be held to be perverse or contrary to record; consequently there is no reason to grant leave to appeal, applying the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal (as laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984).

¶48

Key takeaways

The prosecution did not prove beyond doubt, through its evidence, that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature, because there is neither any post-mortem report nor any FSL report on record; in the absence of medical and laboratory reports it cannot be concluded that the accused caused the deceased to hang herself.ratio¶45
Substantial doubt arises from the different and inconsistent explanations for the death given by accused Kaushilya Bai (consumption of green leaves, heart attack, hanging); the testimony of Rajni Dhanushdhari, the alleged eyewitness to the hanging, was unnatural as she informed no one; there was no definite evidence of harassment on the date of death or cruelty in close proximity to it; and there was a delay in lodging the FIR.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal leave to appeal — acquittal — alleged dowry death (Ss. 304(B)/34 and 201/34 IPC) — State of Chhattisgarh sought leave against acquittal dated 10.01.2023 in Sessions Trial No. 51/2021 (Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband) arising from the death of Roshni Kuldeep, found hanging on 25.05.2021, allegedly over dowry demands of motorcycle and money for house construction, with the body cremated and ashes immersed before her maternal family arrived. Held (per Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Bibhu Datta Guru, J concurring): scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited (State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984); no post-mortem or FSL report existed to establish suicidal death; the accused mother-in-law gave inconsistent causes of death creating substantial doubt; the sole alleged eyewitness (Rajni Dhanushdhari) told no one what she saw; no definite evidence of cruelty on the date of death or in close proximity thereto; FIR delayed — trial Court's findings of acquittal not perverse or contrary to record; leave to appeal (CRMP No. 900 of 2023) rejected.

2025:CGHC:58832-DB

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.06 11:58:55 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRMP No. 900 of 2023

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Bodhan Ram Kuldeep S/o Pardeshi Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gaydbari, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Pardeshi Ram S/o Chanduram Kuldeep Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Gaydbari, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Smt. Kaushalya Bai W/o Pardeshi Ram Kuldeep Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Gaydbari, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - Sonuram Kuldeep S/o Pardeshi Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Gaydbari, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

5 - Tulsi Ram S/o Ajit Ram Jagat Aged About 38 Years R/o Piparchhedi, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

6 - Mukesh Kumar Netam S/o Umendi Ram Jagat Aged About 36 Years R/o P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶21

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

04.12.2025

¶24

The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.01.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 51/2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, C.G. whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

¶25

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05/06/2021, the complainant Kishanlal Sonwani, father of deceased-Roshni Kuldeep lodged a report at Police Station Chura that his daughter Roshni Kuldeep was married in the year 2019 with Bodhan Kuldeep as per social customs. On 25.05.2021 at around 05:00 pm, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, fed up with the harassment of dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. On the above report of the complainant, offence was registered at Police Station Chura and investigation proceedings were carried out. The inquest and panchnama proceedings were conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Chura and the accused were interrogated and their statements were recorded. In the inquest, it was found that the deceased Roshni Kuldeep had committed suicide by hanging herself on the branch of a Bhiraha tree in the forest of the Gauthan of village Gaydabari on 25.05.2021 at around 05:00 pm. Respondents together took down the body of deceased from the tree at around 07:00 pm and brought it

¶26

¶27

home. With the intention of hiding the actual incident, the body was cremated on 26.05.2021 before the arrival of Roshni's maternal family members. On 28.05.2021, the burnt bones and ashes of the body from the cremation in two sacks and immersed them in the dam of Talesar village. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-27 to 29. Respondents/ accused were arrested vide Ex.P-35 to 37. Memorandum statements were recorded. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent.

¶29

After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 10.01.2023 acquitted the respondents/accused herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has failed to assert the material placed by the prosecution in order to prove the case against the respondents/accused and completely failed to understand the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that in present case, every witness was examined before the trial Court and the same was supported the case of prosecution and established the case beyond any reasonable doubt and on contrary, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents in all reasonable doubts. Hence,

¶31

¶32

the impugned judgment requires to be set aside and the respondents deserves to be convicted for the offence committed by him.

¶33

We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present petition with utmost circumspection.

¶34

Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed in paragraphs 58, 61 and 68 as follows:-

¶35

“ 58. A noteworthy fact in the case is that no person in the village saw the deceased hanging after allegedly committing suicide. The prosecution has presented the testimony of Rajni Dhanushdhari, who stated that she had seen the deceased in a hanging position. However, this witness’s testimony is unnatural and unreliable because, according to her own statement, she did not inform anyone at home about the incident. Furthermore, Rajni’s mother, Smt. Kaushilya Bai (PW-05), also denied that Rajni had come home and told her that the deceased Roshni was hanging after committing suicide. It is extremely surprising that even after witnessing such a serious incident, Rajni did not inform anyone at home, and not a single person from the village saw the deceased hanging .

¶36

61. In the case, the deceased’s father, Kishanlal Sonwani (PW-01), her mother, Smt. Dulari Bai (PW-06), and other prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased was physically and mentally harassed and subjected to cruelty

¶37

¶38

by her husband and parents-in-law, who demanded a motorcycle and money for constructing a new house as dowry. Due to this harassment, the deceased allegedly became distressed and committed suicide by hanging. However, these witnesses have clearly denied that any social or family meeting regarding this issue ever took place. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence establishing that the accused had subjected the deceased to any specific physical or mental cruelty. No definite evidence has been produced to show that she was subjected to harassment on the date of her death or that any such cruelty occurred in close proximity to the time of her death

¶39

68. Therefore, after considering the above evidence, it is concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, they are acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. "

¶40

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶41

“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view

¶42

¶43

taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal.

¶44

Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

¶45

In the present case, t he prosecution has not proved the case beyond doubt through its evidence that the death of the deceased was of a suicidal nature. This is because there is neither any post-mortem report nor any FSL report on record, and in the absence of medical and laboratory report, it cannot be concluded that the accused caused the deceased to hang herself. Moreover, considering the testimony of the deceased’s father, Kishanlal (PW-1), this witness stated that, with regard to the death of the deceased, her mother-in-law, accused Kaushilya Bai, had told him that the deceased had died after consuming green leaves, and the accused also informed him that his daughter had died of a heart attack. Later, he came to know that the accused had hanged her. Thus, the different and inconsistent reasons given for the deceased’s death create substantial doubt in the statements . Moreover, looking to the testimony of Rajni Dhanushdhari, who stated that she had seen the deceased in a hanging position, but she had not told to anyone in the village. Furthermore, No definite evidence has been produced to show that she was subjected to harassment on the date of her death or that any such cruelty occurred

¶46

¶47

in close proximity to the time of her death. Also, there is a delay in lodging the FIR.

¶48

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offence are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the instant leave to appeal (CRMP) is rejected.

¶49

Sd/Sd/-

¶50

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶51

Gowri/Amardeep

State of Chhattisgarh v. Bodhan Ram Kuldeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Bodhan Ram Kuldeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangatu Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Komal Bhimge Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Sai Dk Engineering and Projects Private Limited Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

M/S Sai Engineering, Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Jeevan Majhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh