“Prosecution Failed to Prove Proximate Cruelty”: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Dowry Death Accused, Flags Absence of Dying Declaration and Victim’s Mental Illness Disclosure
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Single Bench of Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, has set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused in a dowry death case, reversing the judgment of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (Fast Track Court). The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a proximate link between alleged cruelty and the suicide of the deceased.
In its judgment pronounced on April 15, 2025, the Court acquitted all appellants who were earlier convicted under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court had sentenced them to 10 and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines.
The appeal arose from the conviction of six individuals, namely Champa Lal (husband of the deceased), Om Prakash, Smt. Nakku Bai, Ku. Sarita, and Jagdish, all residents of Village Urmaal, P.S. Devbhog, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The deceased was married to accused Champa Lal in 1998. She died due to burn injuries sustained on December 29, 2000, at her matrimonial home.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was initially taken to Devbhog Hospital, where Dr. Uttam Singh (PW-12) noted 90-100% burns. She was later referred to and admitted at MMI Hospital, Raipur, where she succumbed to injuries on December 30, 2000. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Kumar Dadu (PW-2), who reported death due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn injuries.
Shivlal Shankla (PW-1), father of the deceased, testified that the marriage was solemnized in 1998 with a payment of Rs. 60,000 and some jewellery. He alleged further demands of Rs. 1,25,000 by the accused, stating that his daughter faced repeated harassment and that a miscarriage occurred due to mental stress. PW-1 also mentioned receiving multiple letters from the deceased asking to be taken back to her maternal home.
Laxmi (PW-3), sister of the deceased, corroborated claims of dowry demands and harassment. She stated that her sister had confided about physical abuse, including allegations of stuffing chili powder in her mouth and forced labour. She claimed that these abuses led to a miscarriage and deteriorated health.
PW-9, Sumermal, uncle of the deceased, confirmed that the deceased once wept before him requesting money to fulfil the dowry demand. Omprakash Joshi (PW-5) and Lilar Singh (PW-10), neighbours, stated that they never witnessed any mistreatment or harassment.
Dr. Uttam Singh (PW-12) confirmed the deceased had 90-100% burns but denied she could speak. Dr. M.L. Jain (PW-14), who treated the deceased at MMI Hospital, stated she was conscious and informed that the injuries were due to a stove burst. He also noted that she reported a chronic mental condition.
Dr. Dadu (PW-2) corroborated the cause of death and mentioned the presence of kerosene smell in her hair. No dying declaration was recorded.
The defence stated contradictions in witness testimonies, the lack of a dying declaration, and the mental health issues of the deceased. They cited multiple precedents, including Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2023), and Devinder @ Kala Ram v. State of Haryana (2012), arguing the prosecution failed to meet the criteria under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC.
The Court noted: "Not even a single witness has been in a position to graphically state as to at what point of time or in which month the deceased was subjected to cruelty last."
Regarding letters written by the deceased, the Court recorded: "There is no allegation as to any demand or resultant harassment by the accused/appellants, on the contrary they just mention about her wellbeing."
Addressing the essential ingredients under Section 304-B IPC, the Court observed: "The prosecution has to show that there existed a 'proximate and live link' between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim." It concluded that the required proximity between the cruelty and death was not established.
On the charge under Section 306 IPC, the Court stated: "To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide." It held that no such evidence existed in this case.
The Court also took note of the statement made by the deceased to Dr. M.L. Jain that the burns were accidental: "The victim was conscious and had told him that she suffered burns as a result of stove being burst when she was cooking food."
Concluding the judgment, the Court stated:
"The prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and so also the trial Court has not taken the evidence of the witnesses in its proper perspective. Judgment based on such erroneous appraisal of the facts and the evidence is not worthy of sustenance. It is therefore set aside and the appeal stands allowed. Accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them."
Further, the Court directed: "Since they are already on bail, their bail bonds will remain in force for six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Appellants: V. R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent: Kalpesh Ruparel, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Champa Lal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: CRA No. 1148 of 2002
Bench: Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
[Read/Download order]
