Appeal and revision against acquittal under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. High Court held that the acquittal was reasonable and sustainable as prosecution failed to prove dowry harassment beyond doubt.
Acquittal of respondents affirmed; appeal and revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
MANPREET KAUR
Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.13 16:52:22 +0530
2025:CGHC:55032-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 43 of 2010
Shri Bhusan Agrawal, S/o. Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 35 years, R/o. Ganesh Chowk, New Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
All R/o. Gandhiganj, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : None
For Respondent(s) : Ms. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. N.Naha Roy, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari and Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocates
ACQA No. 262 of 2010
The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.)
--- Appellant(s)
2
Versus
All are R/o.- Gandhi Ganj Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.Naha Roy, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari and Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J .
12.11.2025
3
Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 175/2004, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondentsSatyanarayan Agrawal, Uttam Sawaria, Sachin Sawaria, Sunita Agrawal from the charges punishable under Sections 304-B, 498A of the IPC.
a) The deceased, Smt. Sunita, was the youngest among five sons and a daughter of Santosh Kumar Agarwal (PW-12), resident of Bhilai, District Durg. She was married to Ravi Sanwadia, the second son of accused Satyanarayan Sanwadia, resident of Raigarh, on 26.05.2003. According to the prosecution, her father had spent about Rs.5,95,000/- on the marriage, however, her in-laws were dissatisfied. Within a few days of the marriage, the deceased frequently telephoned her parental home, complaining that her in-laws were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry, taunting and torturing her over trivial issues, abusing and assaulting her, and demanding cash as additional dowry.
4
to come and take his daughter back. Consequently, Bhushan Agarwal (PW-1), brother of the deceased, went to Raigarh. Upon his arrival, the accused misbehaved with him and insisted that he take his sister away. When Bhushan spoke privately with the deceased, she informed him that she was being harassed, abused, and beaten by her in-laws. Despite her pregnancy, she was denied medical treatment. She further told him that unless she was taken back to Bhilai, her in-laws would kill her. About 15– 20 days later, the deceased again called her parents from a doctor’s dispensary in Raigarh, reiterating that her in-laws would kill her if she was not taken back.
(c) On that same day, according to the prosecution, her motherin-law Urmila (accused) kicked her in the stomach, and her sisterin-law Sunita pushed her, causing her to fall and experience severe abdominal pain. The deceased was then taken to a doctor by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. However, before leaving, they made her write a note stating that if anything happened to her, her in-laws would not be responsible. On learning of this, her father Santosh Kumar Agarwal went to Raigarh with Satyanarayan Agarwal, Bhushan Agarwal, Santosh Khetan, and Tarachand Agarwal. In the presence of several witnesses, including Matu Ram Agarwal (PW-5) and Niranjan Agarwal, a discussion took place. The deceased, in everyone’s presence, repeated that her in-laws – father-in-law, mother-in-law, brotherin-law, sister-in-law, and husband – harassed, abused, and beat
5
her, and her husband demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as dowry. She further stated that her in-laws had made her write a letter absolving them of responsibility if anything happened to her. Accused Satyanarayan admitted to tearing that letter. Thereafter, with the consent of the accused, the deceased’s father brought her to Bhilai on 11.10.2003.
(d) Considering her condition, she was examined by Dr. Madhuri Gupta (PW-4), who observed that the deceased had been tortured and was in a serious condition, with little chance of survival. She advised immediate hospitalization. The deceased was admitted to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, on 14.10.2003, but she died at 12:40 a.m. during the intervening night of 14/15.10.2003.
(e) The deceased’s brother, Bhushan Agarwal, informed the Police Station Bhilai Nagar, where inquest intimation no. 0/2003 was registered on 15.10.2003 (Ex. P-1). The deceased’s father submitted a written report (Ex. P-11) at Police Station Cantonment, on the basis of which FIR No. 1080/2003 was registered under Sections 304-B and 498-A/34 IPC against the accused. The Executive Magistrate (PW-19) conducted the inquest proceedings (Ex. P-2) and sent the body for post-mortem to Government District Hospital, Durg. On 15.10.2003 at 1:10 p.m., Dr. A.P. Sawant and Dr. Sugam Sawant performed the postmortem (Ex. P-7) and opined that the deceased died due to swelling of the body and pre-eclampsia of pregnancy, leading to
6
cardio-respiratory failure. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to her brother Bhushan Agarwal (Ex. P-4).
(f) The investigating officer recorded witness statements and seized medical documents relating to the deceased’s treatment (Ex. P-20) from Sector-9 Hospital through seizure memo (Ex. P- 6). The accused were arrested on 06.04.2004 (Ex. P-14 to P-19). During the house search (Ex. P-9), several articles belonging to the deceased were seized, including silver boxes containing vermilion, toe rings, an empty jewelry box, a brown purse, and six sarees. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
7
then the appellate Court is well within its jurisdiction to reverse the acquittal and record conviction. An acquittal that results from ignoring vital evidence, misreading the testimony of material witnesses, or by giving undue weight to trivial inconsistencies cannot be allowed to stand.
(a) From the testimony of Santosh Kumar Agarwal (PW-12), father of the deceased, and Bhushan Agarwal (PW-1), her brother, it was established that the deceased Sunita was married to accused Ravi Sanwaria on 26.05.2003, and that she had complained of harassment after marriage. However, the Court found that these allegations were general in nature and primarily based on hearsay, lacking contemporaneous corroboration.
8
(b) The trial Court observed that although allegations of dowry demand were made, no specific instance of such demand or payment was supported by any independent witness. The prosecution witnesses being close relatives of the deceased, their testimony was required to be corroborated by other credible evidence, which was lacking in this case.
(c) It was noted that the deceased’s alleged oral complaints of cruelty and demand of Rs.5,00,000/were not reported to any authority or local panchayat during her lifetime, nor was there any written complaint or letter from her side to substantiate continuous harassment.
(d) The Trial Court carefully examined the medical evidence and found that the cause of death, as per postmortem report (Ex. P-7) prepared by Dr. A.P. Sawant and Dr. Sugam Sawant, was cardiorespiratory failure due to pre-eclampsia of pregnancy with placental haemorrhage. The Court concluded that there was no medical evidence to suggest homicidal violence or external injuries attributable to physical assault.
(e) The medical witnesses did not find any antemortem injuries sufficient to indicate that the
9
deceased was beaten or assaulted before death. The swelling on her body was found consistent with the effects of pre-eclampsia rather than any external trauma.
(f) The Court observed that the prosecution’s version that the mother-in-law (accused Urmila) had kicked the deceased and that the sister-in-law had pushed her, causing abdominal pain, was supported only by the statements of interested witnesses. No independent witness from the locality or the hospital was examined to confirm this allegation.
(g) The alleged incident in which the deceased was forced to write a statement absolving her in-laws of responsibility in case of her death was not proved by production of the said letter. The failure to produce this document or examine any witness who had seen it being written weakened the prosecution’s case on this aspect.
(h) The learned Trial Court took note of the defence evidence which suggested that the relationship between the deceased and her husband was cordial, and that the deceased was receiving medical care for her pregnancy. The defence witnesses, including DW-
10
1 to DW-5, consistently deposed that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or dowry demands.
(i) The Court found that the couple’s honeymoon trip to Darjeeling and Sikkim between 13.06.2003 and 25.06.2003 shortly after marriage indicated a normal marital relationship and contradicted the prosecution’s assertion of continuous dowry-related harassment immediately after marriage.
(j) The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence of medical neglect or mistreatment by the accused family, despite claiming that the deceased was denied medicines or treatment.
(k) Upon appreciation of the overall evidence, the Court found that while the allegations of cruelty against the husband (Ravi Sanwaria), father-in-law (Satyanarayan), and other in-laws were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the role of the mother-inlaw (Urmila) stood on a different footing.
(l) The Trial Court held that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12, supported by the deceased’s earlier statements, sufficiently established that accused Urmila had subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty connected with unlawful dowry
11
demands, and that such cruelty occurred soon before her death.
(m) Consequently, the learned Trial Court convicted accused Urmila Sanwaria under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, while granting benefit of doubt to the remaining accused persons — Ravi Sanwaria (husband), Satyanarayan Sanwaria (fatherin-law), and others - and acquitting them of the charges.
(n) The Trial Court recorded that its conclusions were based on an objective and balanced assessment of the entire evidence on record, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the complicity of the other accused beyond reasonable doubt, though sufficient material existed to sustain the conviction of the mother-in-law alone.
12
the respondents except Smt. Urmila Devi Agrawal were acquitted of all charges. The Court emphasized that the acquittal was not a reflection of their character but a reflection of the prosecution’s failure to discharge its burden of proof.
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. 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."
“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
13
Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
14
that such omnibus allegations could not be relied upon without corroboration from any independent source.
15
16
17
Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's acquittal of the respondents in a case under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
Whether the view taken by the trial Court regarding the lack of probability of the prosecution's claim of dowry harassment is perverse.
Whether the acquittal of the respondents, except for the mother-in-law who expired, is legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora RamReferred¶86
2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 · Who else cites this
Jafarudheen and others v. State of KeralaReferred¶88
(2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh
Smt. Urmila Devi (Deleted)
Ravi Sanwaria (Deleted)
Satyanarayan Agrawal
Uttam Sanvadia
Sachin Sanvadia
Ramesh Sinha
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
