Narsingh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Utai, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Harishankar Yadav S/o Late Jageshwar Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Indira Nagar Village Dundera, P.S. Utai, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Appellant

¶12

: Mr. RK Jain, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy. GA

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

(17^th March, 2026)

¶18

Per Rajani Dubey, J

¶19

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 23.2.2024 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge Durg in ST No.64/2023 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 304 of IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.

¶20

2

¶21

It is an admitted fact in this case that deceased Daneshwari was wife of Narsingh Yadav and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of respondent No.2 accused Harishankar Yadav. As per the prosecution case, in village Dundera, the accused, Harishankar Yadav, resided with his family. He frequently engaged in quarrels, disputes, and acts of violence with his family members. On 27.12.2021 at around 8:00 PM, the accused, after entering into an altercation with his elder brother i.e. the complainant Narasingh Yadav, proceeded to assault and scuffle with the members of his brother’s family. Upon witnessing the incident, the complainant’s wife, Daneshwari, intervened in an attempt to pacify the situation. At that moment, the accused, in a fit of rage, allegedly grabbed her by the hair and pushed her. As a result, she fell into a nearby burning stove, and a kerosene-filled lamp (chimney) kept close by toppled over, causing the kerosene to spill and ignite. The flames rapidly intensified, engulfing her sari and causing severe burn injuries from the waist down to her legs. She was immediately taken for treatment to the District Hospital in Durg and was subsequently referred to D.K.S. Hospital in Raipur, where she remained under medical care. After initial treatment, she returned to her parental home in village Basin. However, during the course of treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on 8 March 2022. Based on the report lodged by the complainant, a merg inquiry was initially registered at Police Outpost Jevra Sirsa. As the incident fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Utai, the case diary was

¶22

3

¶23

transferred accordingly. Thereafter, Crime No. 13/2023 was registered at Police Station Utai and taken up for investigation.

¶24

During the course of investigation, an inquest report of the deceased was prepared, and the body was sent to the District Hospital, Durg, for post-mortem examination. After examination, the body was handed over to the relatives. A site map of the place of occurrence was prepared. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded, in which she held her brother-in-law, Harishankar Yadav, responsible for the incident. A spot map was also prepared through the Patwari, and statements of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the evidence collected, including the statements of witnesses and the dying declaration, the accused was arrested. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against him under Section 304 of IPC before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and after committal proceedings it was received on transfer for trial by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg.

¶25

Learned trial court framed charge u/s 304 of IPC against the accused which was abjured by him and he prayed for trial. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined one witness.

¶26

4

¶27

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge u/s 304 of IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses where it has come that on account of act of the accused, the deceased sustained burn injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. PW-4 Satyendra Shukla, Naib Teshildar, recorded dying declaration of the deceased where she clearly states against the accused. PW-10 Lokesh Kumar (brother of the deceased) stated that the deceased told him that while quarrel was going on between both the brothers, the accused pushed her as a result of which she suffered burn injury. As per postmortem report it is also clear that the deceased died due to burn injuries and its complications. However, learned trial Court has committed an illegality by giving too much weightage to minor and irrelevant contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses whereas looking to the overall evidence and conduct of the accused, it is crystal clear that it is the accused who committed culpable homicide and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and he be held guilty u/s 304 of IPC and sentenced accordingly.

¶29

5

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the State duly assisted the Court.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

It is clear from the record of learned trial court that accused was charged under Section 304 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court acquitted him of the said charge on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt.

¶33

PW-2 Premin Bai, neighbour of the accused and the deceased, states that on the date of incident she had gone to fetch water from the borewell (hand pump). At that time, there was an argument going on at the house of the accused, and upon hearing the noise, she and Shanti Yadav went to his house. There, they saw the deceased, Daneshwari, had already poured kerosene on herself. They tried to snatch the matchbox from her and threw it outside. After that, Daneshwari went inside saying she would feed her children, and they went back to their homes. She states that on the day of the incident at around 8:00 pm, Daneshwari came out crying for help burning and went towards the field. They took her to the government hospital in Utai, where she was admitted. she died after Holi festival in Phagun. At this stage she was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined where she admits the suggestion of the prosecution that while they were filling

¶34

6

¶35

water from the hand pump, there was an argument between Narsing and Harishankar. She admits that upon hearing the deceased, Daneshwari Yadav, shouting abuses, she went with Shanti Bai to their house and asked them to stop using abusive language. She admits that after that, they filled their water and went back to their homes. She admits that about half an hour later, they heard Daneshwari Yadav's saree catching fire and her running out of the house. Daneshwari's saree was on fire, and she was running towards the field. The family and neighbors intervened, and while they were trying to put out the fire, she fell in the field. When they brought her back, she said she was fine and walked back home on her own. She admits that Daneshwari had told them that the fire was caused when Harishankar pulled her hair and pushed her into the fire pit while intervening in a fight between the two brothers.

¶36

PW-5 Narsingh Yadav, husband of the deceased, states that the accused is his brother who often used to argue with him. On the day of the incident at around 8:00 pm, the accused was arguing with him, and then he started physically assaulting his family members. He had called vehicle 112, and they arrived after half an hour. They called him and asked where his house was, and he went out into the alley. At that time, his wife Daneshwari came out into the alley, crying for help. He ran after her, and she fell down some distance away. Seeing her, the people around them tried to put out the fire by throwing a cloth on her. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he

¶37

7

¶38

admits the suggestion of the prosecution that his wife after being burnt was admitted in hospital. In cross-examination by defence, he denies the suggestion that his brother/accused only quarreled with him and volunteers that he also beat him. In para 14 he states that today he cannot tell how long his wife was admitted to the district hospital in Durg, or on which date she was referred to Medical College Hospital Raipur. He denies the suggestion that he had discharged his wife from Medical College Hospital Raipur on his own and taken her to Basin. The witness voluntarily states that his wife had told him herself that she was fine now, and they should go home for treatment, so he discharged her and took her to his in-laws' house in Basin. He denies the suggestion that due to his negligence in medical treatment of his wife, she died.

¶39

PW-6 Veena Sahu, neighbour of accused, states that Daneshwari burnt herself and ran towards the field and fell down on the way. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and crossexamined where she denied all suggestions of the prosecution.

¶40

PW-7 Shanti Bai Yadav states that on the date of incident there was quarrel between the accused and his wife and his brother and his wife. At that time she went to the house of Narsingh and saw that his wife was holding matchbox which was snatched by them. They persuaded her not to do so, on which she (Dameshwari) told that she is doing it just to frighten. Thereafter, the dispute pacified and they went

¶41

8

¶42

back to their homes. Later the deceased came out into the alley burning and started running towards the field where she fell.

¶43

In cross-examination she states that there was only verbal quarrel between them, hearing the argument she went into the room of Narshing where his wife was found holding a matchbox. She states that there was a stove in the courtyard but it was not burning. She did not see any chimney there.

¶44

PW-9 Dr. Smt. Sarita Minj states that on 27.12.2021 Daneshwari was admitted in Govt. District Hospital Durg with 38% to 40% burn. On being asked as to how she got burnt, Daneshwari told that there was quarrel with her brother-in-law. In cross-examination she admits that at the time of her examination on 30.12.2022 her condition was normal. She admits that the burn injury was not on any of the vital parts of body and that she was referred to Raipur on 11.2.2022.

¶45

PW-11 Himanshu, a child witness of 5 ½ years, who is son of the deceased states that his uncle (accused) burnt his mother. The court asked him several times as to what he saw on the date of incident but he remained silent. In reply to question No.13 as to how his mother was burnt, he states “by pushing into the fire”.

¶46

PW-3 Dr. Shikha Bajpai conducted postmortem on the body of deceased on 8.3.2022 and opined that cause of death was septic shock due to burn complication. She admits that the deceased had

¶47

9

¶48

burns only below the waist. In cases of burns, infection can occur due to reduced immunity. The bed sore on the deceased was caused by lying in one position for a long time. She admits that if the deceased had been properly cared for, the bed sore would not have occurred. Safety shock can occur due to burns and bed sores.

¶49

The prosecution also filed dying declaration of the deceased as Ex.P/6 wherein she states as under:

¶50

“ iz-03 ?kVuk dSls gqbZ ?

¶51

m-03 esjs ifr dk NksVk HkkbZ gfj”kadj ;kno ges”kk “kjkc ihdj ?kj ij esjs ifr ls yM+kbZ djrk gSaA dy fnukad 27-12-2021 jkr 08 cts ds vkl ikl eSa pqYgk tykdj cksfjax ls ikuh Hkjus xbZ Fkh rc gfj”k a dj “kjkc ihdj ?kj vk;k Fkk vkSj esjs ifr ls yM+kbZ dj jgk Fkk] viuh ifRu dks Hkh ekjk FkkA esjs ifr ls yM+kbZ esa eSa chpcpko djus xbZ rks gfj”kadj us eq>s /kDdk fn;k rks eSa pqYgs esa tkdj fxj xbZ] fpeuh ds yq<dus ls eVVh rsy Qsy x;k ftlls vkx HkHkd xbZ vkSj eq>s vkx yx xbZA

¶52

iz-04 fdlh us vkx yxkbZ gS D;k ?

¶53

m-04 ugha] ij ?kVuk ds fy;s ftEesnkj esjk nsoj gfj”kadj ;kno gS ftlus eq>s /kDdk fn;k FkkA”

¶54

In the present case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the dying declaration, the testimony of related witnesses, and the medical evidence. However, a close scrutiny of the evidence reveals significant inconsistencies and infirmities, creating serious doubt about the prosecution version. Firstly, the independent witnesses, namely PW-2

¶55

10

¶56

Premin Bai, PW-6 Veena Sahu, and PW-7 Shanti Bai, who were natural witnesses being neighbours, have not supported the prosecution case in material particulars. They have consistently stated that the deceased had either poured kerosene upon herself or was holding a matchbox and attempting to threaten self-immolation during the quarrel. Although PW-2, in her cross-examination by the prosecution, made a statement implicating the accused, the same is clearly an improvement and does not inspire confidence when read in light of her earlier version. These witnesses being independent, their testimony assumes significance and creates a serious dent in the prosecution story. Secondly, the testimony of PW-5 Narsingh Yadav, the husband of the deceased and an interested witness, also does not fully support the prosecution case. He has not clearly deposed about the alleged act of pushing by the accused and has been declared hostile. His evidence, therefore, does not advance the prosecution case in a reliable manner.

¶57

Thirdly, the child witness PW-11 Himanshu, though stating that the accused pushed his mother into fire, has not given a consistent or clear account and remained largely silent during questioning. His testimony, considering his tender age and lack of clarity, cannot be made the sole basis of conviction without strong corroboration, which is absent in the present case. Fourthly, the medical evidence also does not conclusively support the prosecution case. As per PW-9 Dr. Sarita Minj and PW-3 Dr. Shikha Bajpai, the deceased had sustained burns

¶58

11

¶59

only below the waist and was initially in a stable condition. The cause of death was septic shock due to burn complications and bed sores. The doctor has categorically admitted that proper care could have prevented bed sores and complications. This introduces an intervening factor between the injury and death, thereby weakening the direct nexus required to establish culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. Fifthly, although the dying declaration (Ex.P/6) implicates the accused, it is not free from doubt. It must be noted that the same stands in contradiction with the version given by independent witnesses. In cases where the dying declaration is not wholly reliable or is contradicted by other evidence, it would be unsafe to base conviction solely upon it without corroboration. Further, the conduct of the deceased, as emerging from the testimony of independent witnesses, indicates that she was agitated and had attempted to threaten selfharm during the quarrel. This raises a reasonable possibility that the incident may have occurred in a different manner than alleged by the prosecution. In this case, the incident occurred on 27.12.2021 and after three months she died on 8.3.2022 whereupon merg intimation was recorded and after investigation FIR was registered on 10.1.2023 against the accused.

¶60

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 42 as under:-

¶61

12

¶62

“42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

¶63

“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

¶64

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶65

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

¶66

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

¶67

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”

¶68

In light of the above, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who, by a deliberate

¶69

13

¶70

or culpable act, caused the burn injuries leading to the death of the deceased. The possibility of accidental burning or self-inflicted act cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible and reasonable one, based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and therefore does not warrant interference. Accordingly, this Court holds that the acquittal of the accused under Section 304 IPC is justified and calls for no interference. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶71

Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶72

MOHD Digitally signedby MOHD AKHTAR AKHTAR KHANDate: KHAN 2026.03.1912:42:29 +0530

¶73

Khan

Narsingh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsingh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs A.E. Gabriyal

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jagdeo Dhanuhaar @ Ghosariha

Ghashi Ram Lonia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramesh Khare @ Ramesh

Suryakant Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khinuram (Died and Deleted) Vs Chandrika