News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 96 | 2026:CGHC:3234-DB
January 21, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of four members of a family accused of causing the dowry death of a young woman, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential legal requirements under the Indian Penal Code.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal upheld the 2016 judgment of the Sessions Court in Raipur, which had acquitted the accused of charges under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appeal was filed by the complainant, the father of the deceased woman, seeking reversal of the acquittal.
The case related to the death of Roshni Sen, who suffered extensive burn injuries at her matrimonial home in Raipur in January 2015, roughly four years after her marriage. She succumbed to her injuries during treatment. Her parental family later alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws over dowry demands, leading to her death.
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court noted that while the death occurred within seven years of marriage, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry “soon before her death,” a mandatory condition for invoking the offence of dowry death. The Court observed that several key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s parents, made admissions during cross-examination that weakened the prosecution’s case, including acknowledgments that no dowry demand was made at the time of marriage and that the accused bore medical expenses during treatment.
The Court also examined the medical evidence and the dying declaration recorded during treatment. Doctors testified that the deceased had stated her burns were accidental, and the dying declaration itself did not attribute the act of setting her on fire to any of the accused. The Bench further pointed out procedural shortcomings in the dying declaration, including the absence of medical certification regarding the victim’s fitness to make the statement.
Relying on settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, including recent Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that where two views are reasonably possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s assessment of evidence, the Bench concluded that interference was unwarranted. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal was dismissed, bringing the decade-long criminal proceedings to a close.
Case Reference : ACQA No. 122 of 2016, Siyaram Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others; counsel for the appellant: Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate; for respondent No.1/State: Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate; and for respondent Nos. 4 and 5: Mr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate.
