The Chhattisgarh High Court, affirming Supreme Court precedents, held that conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot rest on dowry-death allegations alone when the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence or motive, and that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot shift the burden in the absence of a prima facie case; binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1342/2019 of JITENDRA GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010301882019 |
| Date of Registration | 07-09-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Rajani Dubey & Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and of murder under Section 302 IPC, including motive, possession and opportunity to administer poison, and a complete chain of circumstances as required by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The trial court’s reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift burden without first establishing a prima facie case was misplaced. Charges under Section 302 IPC must be framed and sustained only if evidence independently supports homicidal intent and all circumstantial links. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased, married for under seven years, died of poisoning; prosecution witnesses gave contradictory accounts on dowry harassment and poison administration; no external injuries or dying declaration; inquest memo did not implicate the accused; trial court’s finding on burden-shift was unsustainable. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44509-DB (AFR) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC in dowry-death matters requires independent proof of homicidal intent and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence; dowry-death alone under Section 304-B IPC is insufficient.
- Section 106 Evidence Act cannot shift the burden onto the accused unless a prima facie case is established by the prosecution.
- Trial courts must not frame or sustain a murder charge mechanically on Supreme Court directions without regard to the nature of evidence in the case.
- Absence of external injuries, a dying declaration and inquest memo entries linking the accused weaken the prosecution’s case in poisoning-based offences.
- Failure to record the deceased’s statement (dying declaration) and omissions in witness statements can lead to acquittal even where death is unnatural.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The trial court framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and alternately 306 and 302 IPC; convicted under 498-A and 302 IPC.
- Prosecution established only that the wife died of poisoning within seven years of marriage and alleged dowry harassment.
- Key witnesses admitted omissions and contradictions: no prior police reports of harassment, no mention of poison administration in police statements, and no calls to parental home.
- Medical evidence showed poison-induced death but no external injuries to suggest forced administration. No dying declaration was recorded.
- Applying Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Rajbir Singh, the court found the chain of circumstances incomplete and alternative hypotheses not excluded.
- The trial court’s reliance on Section 106 Evidence Act to draw adverse inference without a prima facie case was held impermissible per Anees.
- Supreme Court precedents (Sonali Mukherjee, Shivaji Chintappa Patil, Jasvinder Saini) mandate evidence-based framing and proof of each ingredient; conviction under Section 302 IPC was therefore unsustainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Material omissions and contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ statements.
- Chain of circumstances incomplete; no independent evidence of dowry demand or poison administration.
- Appellant took the deceased for medical treatment, showing absence of guilty intent.
- Reliance on Section 106 Evidence Act was misapplied.
Respondent (State):
- Trial court correctly appreciated evidence and convicted appellant under relevant provisions.
Factual Background
Jitendra Gupta married Ritu Gupta in October 2014. On 13 February 2018, she consumed poison allegedly due to dowry harassment and died on 14 February 2018. Police registered FIR under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC, later adding and convicting on Section 302 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, and this appeal challenged that conviction.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder requires proof of homicidal intent.
- Section 304-B IPC: Dowry death within seven years of marriage with cruelty for dowry demand.
- Section 106 Evidence Act: Burden of proof on accused only where fact is especially within his knowledge and prosecution has established a prima facie case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on circumstantial evidence and Section 106 Evidence Act affirmed.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44509-DB (AFR)
- CRA/1342/2019, CNR CGHC010301882019