Allowed

Anish Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026CRA/708/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband convicted under Section 304B IPC for wife's death by poisoning within seven years of marriage appealed. Evidence showed no dowry demand and no complaint of cruelty; presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act not attracted. Conviction held perverse and appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside; appellant acquitted and directed to be released on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety under Section 481 BNSS.

Anish Prakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:643

NAFR

The date	The date	The date when the judgment is uploaded on
when the	when the	the website
judgment is	judgment is
reserved	pronounced
		Operative Full
-	06-01-2026	06-01-2026 08-01-2026

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 708 of 2010

¶7

Anish Prakash, S/o Shri Robinson Prakash, aged 32 years, R/o Vill. Farfoud, PS-Arang, District Raipur (CG)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh through the PS – Arang, Distt. Raipur.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. G.A.

¶13

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶15

Judgment on Board (06^th January, 2026)

¶16

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.9.2010 passed by 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST No.106/2008 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for three months.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of the accused was solemnized with deceased Ekta Prakash on 24^th April, 2002 at CNI Church, Baloda Bazar. After marriage, the accused had been harassing the deceased for bringing money from his in-laws and on 13.3.2006 he again demanded Rs.10,000/-, on which the deceased informed about this demand over phone to her brother Antony Joseph. However, thereafter she was admitted in critical condition by her inlaws to Medical College Hospital, Raipur where she was declared dead. On this offence u/s 304B of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant and other co-accused. After completion of usual investigation, the police filed charge sheet u/s 304B/34 of IPC against accused Carolina Prakash and Robinson Prakash as also the accused/appellant showing him to be absconded.

¶18

In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded

¶19

¶20

under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶21

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. However, coaccused Carolina Prakash and Robinson Prakash were tried separately and by judgment dated 31.3.2009 they were acquitted of the said charge.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant harassed or tortured the deceased for dowry which led her to commit suicide. There are only general and omnibus allegations. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty by the appellant. She submits that marriage was solemnized more than four years prior to the unfortunate incident but during this period, no report or complaint was ever made to the police or to the community regarding alleged dowry demand and consequent cruelty by the accused. There is no injury noticed on the body of the deceased which itself negates the allegation of assault by the accused. There are number of omissions and contradictions in the statements of the

¶23

¶24

prosecution witnesses which makes the whole case doubtful as against the present appellant. The necessary ingredients for attracting the offence u/s 304B of IPC are missing in this case. There is no evidence to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt.

¶25

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Siddh Gopal Naredi and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 1 CGLRW 136 .

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the accused/appellant, his mother Carolina Prakash and father Robinson Prakash (co-accused) were charged under Section 304B/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court

¶29

¶30

while acquitting Carolina and Robinson of the said charge by judgment dated 31.3.2009, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant u/s 304B of IPC by the impugned judgment.

¶31

It is an admitted position in this case that deceased Ekta Prakash was wife of accused/appellant Anish Prakash and their marriage was solemnized on 24^th April, 2002 and she died on 13.3.2006 by consuming some poison.

¶32

PW-1 JM Kerketta, mother of the deceased, states that at the time of marriage of her daughter, they gave motorcycle to the accused/appellant. After 3-4 months of marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs.60,000/- for employment of accused Anish Prakash and then she somehow arranged Rs.40,000/- about 15 days thereafter and went to the house of the accused persons for giving them the said amount. Further, 3-4 months thereafter they again demanded money for opening a CD shop.

¶33

In cross-examination she admits that at the time of marriage no discussion regarding dowry took place. She also admits that the accused/appellant would treat her daughter well. She states that though at the time of recording her police statement (Ex.D/1) she had disclosed the fact regarding demand of motorcycle by accused Robinson and Anish about a week prior to the marriage, but if the said fact is not mentioned there, she cannot tell the reason. She admits that there is a servant in the house of her in-laws. She states that she made

¶34

¶35

a statement before the police regarding demand of money by the accused persons for opening a shop but if the same is not recorded in Ex.D/1, she cannot tell the reason.

¶36

PW-2 Antony Joseph Kerkett, borther of the deceased, made a similar statement as made by PW-1. He also states that the accused persons used to demand money for opening a shop. In crossexamination he admits that no discussion regarding demand of dowry ever took place at the time of marriage. He also admits that no report was lodged with the police by them regarding demand of dowry or ever disclosed to the members of their community.

¶37

PW-3 Bhupendra Chandrakar states that he is working in the house of in-laws of the deceased. On the date of incident, the accused persons were not present at the house as they had gone to their work. The deceased asked him to bring fevicol and when he returned, she told that she is feeling giddiness, he advised her to take rest and thereafter went out of the house with her infant. After about half an hour when he returned, he found the deceased lying on bed after vomitting and loose motion. He cleaned all this. The deceased asked him to call in Shyamabai (maternal aunt of accused Anish). He states that when he returned to the house with Shyamabai, at that time the deceased was lying in unconscious condition in the bathroom. He states that the deceased was taken to hospital at Raipur by accused

¶38

¶39

Robinson and Carolina and next day he came to know about death of Ekta.

¶40

In cross-examination he admits that Ekta used to consume medicines of her own for her headache and stomach ache. He admits that Ekta and her husband (accused/appellant) were leaving happily and there was no dispute between them.

¶41

PW-4 Naveen Ambalkar, brother-in-law of the accused, also states that on the date of incident, Ekta was seriously ill, so she was initially taken to hospital at Mandir Hasoud and on the advice of Dr. Rai, she was taken to Medical College Hospital, Raipur where the doctor declared her dead. He also admits that Ekta was living well with the accused persons and her mother and brothers never complained to him.

¶42

PW-5 Shyamabai states that when she went to the house of inlaws of the deceased, she saw that the deceased was lying in the bathroom, she was vomiting and defecating. On being asked, the deceased told that she is feeling giddiness. Then she took her out of the bathroom with the help of Geetanjali and changed her clothes. PW6 Rekha Chouhan states that she saw that Ekta was ill and she was taken to hospital.

¶43

PW-11 Dr. Vikash Kumar Dhruv conducted postmortem of the deceased and opined that death was due to cardio-respiratory failure

¶44

¶45

as a result of suspected poisoning. He did not notice any internal or external injury on her body. His report is Ex.P/10.

¶46

Close scrutiny of the evidence of all these witnesses makes it clear that the deceased never made any complaint against her husband accused Anish or her in-laws to the police or member of her community. Her mother and brother also admit that they never complained against the accused persons to the police or the society members. The independent witnesses have supported the defence of the accused that the deceased died due to consumption of some wrong medicines.

¶47

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 31^st January, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1076/2014 in the matter of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana . held in paras 8 and 17 as under:

¶48

“8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant's wife occurred within seven years of the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:"

¶49

113-B. Presumption as to dowry death .-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

¶50

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

¶51

¶52

The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.

¶53

… Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B. Not a single incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was proved by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly.”

¶54

In light of above, if the facts and evidence emerging in the present case are looked into, it is crystal clear that all the material witnesses have unequivocally admitted that no demand of dowry was raised by the accused at the time of marriage; the deceased whenever visited her parental home never made complaint against the accused regarding demand of dowry or any ill-treatment in connection therewith. In order to constitute offence under Section 304B of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death of the woman must be by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances, it

¶55

¶56

occurred within seven years of marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her husband's relatives in connection with demand of dowry. If these conditions are met, the law presumes the death to be a dowry death. However, in this case, the prosecution though succeeded in proving that the deceased suffered unnatural death within seven years of marriage but utterly failed to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused for or in connection with demand of dowry. Rather the evidence goes to show that there was no demand ever made by the accused. Even the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide. However, learned trial Court without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding of guilt against the accused/appellant which being perverse and illegal is liable to be set aside.

¶57

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 304B of IPC.

¶58

Accused/appellant is reported to be in jail. Therefore, he be set free forthwith if not required in connection with any other offence. However, keeping in in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 he is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which

¶59

¶60

shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, he on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶61

20. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.

¶62

Sd/ Digitally signed (Rajani Dubey) MOHD by MOHDAKHTAR KHAN Judge AKHTAR Date: KHAN 2026.01.0811:41:29 +0530 Khan

Anish Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajulal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vidya Bai Dahariya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Panchu Lal Pandhre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harnam Singh Odde Vs Shri Rajendra Kumar Patel

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs Mr. Ashutosh Sharma

Rajesh Kumar Sahu Vs Krishna Sahu