State of Chhattisgarh Vs Birendra Chandel

¶1

1

¶2

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶3

2026:CGHC:3769-DB

¶4

Digitally ANKIT signed byANKITKUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:2026.01.23 10:39:00 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶8

[Arising out of judgment dated 03.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.140/2018 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh.]

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Station House Officer, Police Outpost Padmnabhpur, Police Station Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

Birendra Chandel S/o Late Abhimanyu Chandel, aged about 22 years, R/o Near New Police Line Durg, Utkal Nagar, Police Outpost Padmnabhpur, Police Station Durg, District, Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For State-Appellant :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. For Respondent :- None.

¶15

Division Bench

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶17

Judgment On Board (22.01.2026)

¶18

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶19

Heard on question of admission.

¶20

2

¶21

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶22

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the StateAppellant calling in question judgment of acquittal by which Birendra Chandel-respondent herein, has been acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B of the IPC.

¶23

The respondent herein was tried for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC alleging that on 21.06.2018 at about 11:35 am at Utkal Nagar near New Police Line, Durg, Police Station Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Heena Chandel, wife of the appellant, committed suicide on account of demand of dowry, cruelty meted out by the appellant within 7 years of marriage and thereby committed the offence.

¶24

The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record and taking into consideration the statements of PW-3 Gajanand, father of the deceased, PW-4 Hema Piprol, other of the deceased, PW-5 Parmanand Chandel, uncle of the deceased and PW-6 Krishna Piprol, cousin brother of the deceased, came to the conclusion that there is no custom in the family of the accused/respondent either to give or take dowry in the marriage and, therefore, the respondent did not ask for dowry. Furthermore, for the first time fact of demanding ₹30,000/- and 20,000/- by the accused/respondent, has₹ been stated by the prosecution witnesses before the Court.

¶25

3

¶26

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶27

However, the main reason for committing suicide recorded by the trial Court is that the respondent herein is a member of very humble or poor background and, therefore, she committed suicide.

¶28

Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel, has questioned the judgment of acquittal on the ground that learned trial Court has omitted the relevant evidences which are required to be considered and thereby recorded a perverse finding and acquitted the respondent herein from the offence in question and, therefore, acquittal appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the State-Appellant and gone through the records minutely.

¶30

A careful perusal of the statements of PW-3 Gajanand, father of the deceased, PW-4 Hema Piprol, other of the deceased, PW-5 Parmanand Chandel, uncle of the deceased and PW-6 Krishna Piprol, cousin brother of the deceased, would show that there is no custom in the family of the accused to demand or take dowry, which has candidly been admitted by the aforesaid witnesses and, therefore, no dowry was demanded by the appellant at the time of marriage. Furthermore, PW-4, mother of the deceased, has

¶31

4

¶32

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶33

clearly admitted that even after knowing the fact that her daughter committed suicide no FIR was lodged against the respondent herein. In para 11 of her statement before the Court she has also admitted that for the first time she has stated the fact of demanding ₹30,000/- and ₹20,000/before the Court and she has not stated the said fact in her earlier statement before the police. Similar statement has been made by PW-3 & PW-5, father and uncle of the deceased, respectively. The fact of demanding amount of ₹20,000/- and 30,000/- has been stated by PW-3 for the₹ first time before the Court and it has not been stated in his police statement. Further, PW-5 has made the statement with regard to the fact of demanding ₹20,000/- and ₹30,000/- on basis of information given by PW-3. As such, from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and finding recorded by the trial Court, it is established that though the death of Heena Chandel occurred within 7 years of the marriage and it was unnatural death and death was occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, but other ingredients that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by respondent herein in connection with demand of dowry which were not established and in absence of which, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the

¶34

5

¶35

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶36

respondent herein from the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. Particularly, it is not a case where only one view is possible indicating towards the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court in the matter of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka 1 has clearly held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The said principle has been followed in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand2 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record and no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, we do not find that the said findings recorded by the learned trial

¶38

1 (2024) 8 SCC 149

¶39

2 2025 INSC 114

¶40

6

¶41

ACQA No. 67 of 2021

¶42

Court suffers from patent perversity or the same is based on misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record and two reasonable views are possible and it is not a case where only one view is possible indicating towards the guilt of the accused on the basis of evidence available on record, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

¶43

In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case for admission, accordingly, this acquittal appeal filed by the State is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage without issuing notice to the respondent. No cost(s).

¶44

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge

¶45

Ankit

State of Chhattisgarh v. Birendra Chandel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Birendra Chandel

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

Arjun Patle Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harish Kumar Navrangye @ Bablu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Prity Sinha Vs Mithlesh Sinha

Tikeshwar Panda Vs Smt. Sangeeta Panda

Sunita Kashyap Vs Rakesh Kumar Kashyap

Tikeshwar Panda Vs Smt. Sangeeta Panda