The Chhattisgarh High Court held that where a duly recorded dying declaration describes an accidental burn without any allegation of dowry harassment or cruelty, conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC cannot stand and acquittal under Section 304B/34 IPC must be maintained. This decision reaffirms the “proximity test” for dowry-death cases and serves as binding authority on subordinate courts and persuasive precedent for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/365/2014 of Tuneshwar Lodhi and Anr. Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh CNR CGHC010177392014 |
| Date of Registration | 09-04-2014 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed (appeal challenging conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC) |
| Judgment Author | Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | None |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC; Affirms acquittal under Section 304B/34 IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that a voluntary dying declaration recorded by a competent official, describing the incident as purely accidental with no mention of cruelty or dowry demand, is admissible under Section 32(1) Evidence Act and negates the possibility of harassment “soon before” death. The prosecution failed to prove any demand for dowry or mental/physical cruelty required under Section 498A IPC and did not establish the “proximity” between alleged harassment and death mandated by Section 304B IPC. In absence of direct allegations or corroborative evidence of dowry demand or cruelty, conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC must be set aside, and the trial court’s acquittal under Section 304B/34 IPC rightly stands. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A married woman sustained burn injuries on 27.11.2012 and died next day. An FIR was lodged under Section 304B/34 IPC alleging dowry-death. The Tehsildar recorded her dying declaration at Burn & Trauma Centre, Bilaspur, in which she stated the burns were accidental. Trial court convicted under Section 498A/34 IPC but acquitted under Section 304B/34 IPC. Both conviction- and acquittal-appeals were heard together. |
| Citations | CRA No. 365/2014; ACQA No. 141/2014 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Overrules | Convictions under Section 498A/34 IPC based solely on uncorroborated allegations of dowry harassment when a dying declaration negates cruelty |
| Follows | K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao; Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A coherent dying declaration describing accidental self-immolation, recorded by a competent official, can completely negate dowry-harassment allegations and sustain an acquittal.
- The court reaffirmed that Section 304B IPC’s “soon before her death” ingredient demands proximate cruelty; stale or unconnected allegations will not suffice.
- In absence of any mention of cruelty or names of accused in the dying declaration, prosecution must produce independent evidence of dowry demand and harassment for Section 498A IPC to stick.
- Material contradictions and omissions in family members’ testimony on dowry demand weaken the prosecution’s case and may warrant acquittal.
- This decision provides a template to challenge Section 498A prosecutions where the dying declaration supports an accidental narrative.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Admissibility of Dying Declaration
- Section 32(1) Evidence Act exception to hearsay; dying declaration describing cause and circumstances of death is admissible.
- Confirmed by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Purshottam Chopra that such statements may be sole basis if voluntary and coherent.
-
Examination of Dying Declaration (Ex.P-16)
- Recorded by Tehsildar (PW-16).
- Declarant in a fit state of mind; stated burns were accidental due to darkness while making tea; no fault of anyone.
-
Ingredients of Section 304B IPC
- Requires “cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, demand for dowry” “soon before” death.
- Proximity test from Kaliyaperumal: allegations must be proximate, not stale. No such proximate cruelty found.
-
Ingredients of Section 498A IPC
- Cruelty includes willful conduct likely to drive to suicide or grave injury, or harassment to coerce unlawful demand.
- No evidence of dowry demand mentioned in dying declaration or FIR; witness testimonies contradicted and omitted crucial details.
-
Conclusion
- Prosecution failed to prove any dowry demand or cruelty. Conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC set aside.
- Acquittal under Section 304B/34 and alternative Section 302/34 IPC affirmed.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Accused in CRA No. 365/2014):
- Dying declaration records accidental fire; no cruelty by accused.
- No evidence of dowry demand for sumo, four-wheeler or cash.
- Trial court ignored clear dying declaration.
State (Respondent in CRA No. 365/2014):
- Conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC is in accordance with law; no infirmity.
Appellant/Complainant (ACQA No. 141/2014):
- Trial court perverse in acquitting for Section 304B/34 IPC; evidence shows cruelty for dowry demand leading to suicide.
Respondents No. 2 & 3 (Accused in ACQA No. 141/2014):
- No dowry demand proved; no report lodged during deceased’s lifetime; contradictions in prosecution witnesses.
State (Respondent No. 1 in ACQA No. 141/2014):
- Supports complainant’s challenge to acquittal.
Factual Background
In 2008, the deceased married appellant No. 1. About four months later, she alleged mental and physical harassment over dowry demands (a four-wheeler, cash). On 27.11.2012 she sustained extensive burns and died on 28.11.2012. The FIR (Ex.P-14) was registered under Section 304B/34 IPC. A dying declaration recorded by the Tehsildar stated the incident was accidental. At trial, the accused were acquitted of dowry-death charges but convicted under Section 498A/34 IPC. Both sides appealed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 32(1), Evidence Act, 1872: Exception to hearsay for statements as to cause and circumstances of death; admissible irrespective of expectation of death.
- Section 304B, IPC: Dowry-death requires death of woman within seven years of marriage and “soon before her death” harassment or cruelty for dowry.
- Section 498A, IPC: Cruelty by husband/relative includes willful conduct likely to drive woman to suicide or harassment to coerce unlawful demand for property/valuable security.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms principles in K. Prema S. Rao and Kaliyaperumal regarding proximity test.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Purshottam Chopra on dying declarations.
Citations
- (2003) 1 SCC 217 (K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao)
- (2004) 9 SCC 157 (Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N.)
- (1984) 4 SCC 116 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra)
- AIR 2000 SC 2324 (Kans Raj v. State of Punjab)
- (2020) 11 SCC 489 (Purshottam Chopra v. State of NCT of Delhi)
- CRA No. 365/2014; ACQA No. 141/2014 – High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur