CF00000581S6 IN THE HIGH.COURT QE.MAEHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1 ~-l~fc' /95 APPELLANTS: 1o Puranlal son of Dhanush Singh- Kurmi, aged 30 years; (IR jailj 2. Nohar Singh, son of Dhanush-\ ^U^l-«-<^ ^' "''"" "--3"' -'-"^"^"—- ^^ Singh Kurmi, aged 35 years, /" •> both residents of Gabhara, Police Station: Bhilai,Dt.Dorg ; (M.P) RESPONDENTS: The State of Madhya Pradesh CRIME UNDEB SECTIGN SM, 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDU&E 1973. BK;' ""%. ..'^ iv^ 9 J s '^-^ ^ ^ ":Sf^ -m^ i^'iS^I J» »'B S .BF. 3 Puranial o IT luiiyo ihri R. M. Soiaourkar, counsel for the aope Shri Pravln Das, Dy. G.A, for the State/re3{ ient. dent. '.•P^tWT^?" .'ftt.ff" .^*S%TS..B -dfa s S v^c'^.iif^.^'-jf fy^sa ff.se ^^i°s •* ^ rws^m ^n^ lent anti orcter nd Aeiditional Sessions I*. ^3'42/' Section 306 of !PC dated 27.01,1995 by Ss Judcie, Durq in Sessions Triat !( accused/'appeilant for the offence and sentencing &oth of Imprisonment 1-or five years. 2. Brief facte of the case are that the ma'riage of the deceased Khemin Ba' was soiemnszed with the appellant Puranlai sometims in tne year 1981. The appellant workina as Home Guard at Durq and never usecl to kes deceased with him. Ths deceased/accused Nohar (elder brother of the appellant) had made an ai yinar outraae :v or laeu rtion is Seft her mgtrimonlai house, Furtiier case of the prose< that from.the jnception of marriage, the appeHant had never been any talking terms wjth his wife (the deceased) and uitimateiy on 30.05.1990 she committed suicide by setting abtaze in the house of Tikkamla! Verma (Pw-4). Merg intimatjon Ex. P-8 was given by the sa'd Tlkkamlal Verma and based on which FIR (net e^hibited) was registeres 'A^h. Sl.05.1990 under section 306 of IPC against the appellant. After invsstigation Challan was fiieci on 03.07.1990 against him for the sald of iFCi 3. So as to hold th< has examlneci 18 witn.esses ccused/appe;lant guilty, prosecutton 1"^ '&*(?1 ^^ U ^Ss ^ of of Crimi charge ieveiled against hir fa!se impiication in the case «so recoraecs und dure in whlch hs pleaded his innocence an. ths arina tha >ri t» ;(»' ine T-IS! ^ou? I'icted 5. Contention of the that even if the entire ca baslc inQredients of the s; trte Dresent case, iarned csunsei for the appefiant is ,e is taken as !t is, the offence under made out against the appe'lant as lid section are comptetelv missina in »e other 'nand learned counsef for the Sb 'yi subl u&mits that the deceased was extent where she was teft with ^nr^ y 'trf-'iwf > i ICt Of ippellant v l,^ ^ijim nrs i ^? *M?^J^^<1 fc --i -^ ^lj? i •n^ i< be shown to him, 7. He< di tn< avallable on record Including the judgment Impugned, ist n (PW-1) vtfho at the istabie had received the seizure of Ex. P-2, V. eon who had done the Post-mortem of the body •J?' !6 b0< -3- S'St' 'f of the deceased atong wlth Dr. D. C, Jain Ex.P-3 has stated that the deceased diec injunes. Nemuram (PW-3), a resident of village F{ stated that one nioht the deceased had come to his house a.n 1>1 that hs the deceased/accused Nohar Singh used to catch hoid of her hand. Tskkamjal Verma (PW-4), brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that the reiatlon between the deceased ind t.he appetlant was not good and the appellant did not like to see the face of the deceased nor there was any taiKinq term between them. He has stated that whenever the deceased paid respect to the appeilant, ttie same was refused by hlm and slnce the date of marriage, there was no talKing terms between them. Amar Chand Verma (PW-5), the head of Kshatrj co.mmunity which bo.th the appellant and the deceased belongs to, has recetved an appllcation from the deceased/accused Nohar Singh for resoiving the dispute. Me has stated that both the parties had attended the meetjng and they were made to understand. Accordmg to this vtfitness he hsd passed an order to be taken the dsceased by the appeiiant cancellng the grant of Rs. 350 per month to ler. Jagdlsh Prasad (PW-6) had sent certain articiss for F.3,L. Mahadeo Tiwari (PW-7) had recorded the Merg Intimation Ex, P-8. Moredhwaj (PW-8), brother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased was soiemnized with the appeflant In the year 1981. The appf, Home Guard at Duro and never kept tS- He has stated that the dsceased had informed him that the appsliant wouid not accept food and water from her snci used to ask his famijy members to harass her, He has further stated that the deceased/accused Nohar Slngh to mske her modesty. He has stated that a society meetlng was ca.Hed to resolve the dispute. Tnere appears to IdUl. irer of -4- be material contradictions in his court statement from hls case diary statement. Balmlki (PW-9) is a nejgt Tikkamia! (PW-4) jn whose house the deceased com; suicide, has not stated anything against the ap.E Mahesh (PW-10) is a witness to the panchayat meeti has proved the proceedjngs of the meefcing, R. K. (PW-11), Nyab Tahsiidar js a wrtness to the in Gajanand (PW-12), father of the deceased has statee after marriage of the deceased wlth the 3.opelJant, hardly stayed 4-8 days along with the appeliant wher was subjected to cruetty by the appeliant" ans deceased/accused Nohar Singh used to harass her. never keot his dauahter a! ;ed Nohar Slnah used to room during nicht, He has admitted the fact that resolve t-he disoute between the parties cho He has wjth 'r her Yami.n! (PW-13) ls the cousin sister or the decease.d has afso stated that the appe.ilant was residjng separately at the place where he was workino and did not keep the deceased with hlm. Mannulal (PW-14), uncle of the deceased has also .madi similar allegation as made by Yamjnl (PW-13), 15) ls a selzure wltness of Ex. P-13 by whlch ksrosene oil, stove and match box vvere seized, Jagannath (PW-16) has proved the Merg jntjmation Ex.P-8, Suresh Chandra Goswsmi (PW-17), the town inspector has done part of jnyestigation whereas Surash Tiwan (PW-iS), tns Investjgating Officer has supported the p.rosecution case. Minute examjnation of the evids there may be some dispute betw the evidence does not refle< :®reveals the fact that sn husband and wlfe was su&jected to cruelty to She extent where she was ieft: with no (T-w |Biljiaj|! ;$6afe!h^ifil* ^i! -s- 10. To see whether the act of ffie accuseci/appellant can termed as cruelty, a glimpse of "abetment" enshrined Secfcion 107 IPC appears to be the need, which reads under: Section 107. A person abets ttie doing of a tfiing, who First. - Instigates any person to do that thlng; or Sewnd.ly - Enggges with one or more othsr person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thsng, sf an act or iliegal om-'ssion takes plaws in pursuancg ofthat conspiracy, and /n order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdiy.- Intentionally aids, by any act or iflegal omission, the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 1, — A person who, by willi misrepresentation, or 'oy v/illfu! concsalment of a as voluntarily causes or procures, or attsmpts or procure, a thing to be done, is •sate the doing of tha.t thing. to Expfanation 2.- Whoever, elther prior to oratthe tsme of the commisslon of an act, does in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and therebv facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." The statements of the witnesses thus do not go to show that the accused/appellant had ever snstlgated or abetted the deceased in any manner whatsoever which could have compeited her for commission of suicicie. This being the sltuatiors, lt appears to be dlfflcuit for thls Court to maintatn the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC as the tnaredients of abetment defined Sn Section 107 IPC are comDletelv absent in this case. flndjngs sentencsna -b- view of the afore by the accused/appellant weil reasoned and i cussion the and is mentioned above do not !.rs, be set aslde, 12. Accordingiy, the appeai is af dated 27.01,1995 is hereby set a t£ 11.1 »n j impugnec judgment appeUant is if bail, His baii bonds stand'ciischarged Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^e -( in' L-SS®;^ Ea