^ ^^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CrimmalAppealNo. ....l.fe:.;Z... of 2008 Sl ^ APPELLANTS (^^j^^ 10^.....^ ^l. RESPONDENT ^:" 1. Gore Lal S/o Dhajaram aged about 50 years 2. Vinod Kumar S/o Gore Lal Sahu ^ aged about 24years, \v 3. Smt. Tulsi Bai W/.o Gore Lal, aged about 47 years All are R/o Village Sakarra, P.S. Hirri District Bilaspiu- (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374(2^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ^- r ^RH AT BILASPUR (Mon. Mr. Justlce Pritinlcer DiwaNer) Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Gore Lat and others State of Chhattisgarh Post for pronouncement of the judgment on g.02.20ia:. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge ^. [ -- ^NN^- HIGH COURT OF CMHATriSOARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker DSwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Gore Lat and others State of Chhattlsgarh Ms, Sangita Mishra/ counsel for the appeltants. Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f21 OF THE CODE OF CRXMSNAL PROCE&URE JUDGMiNT (8 .02.201i) 3 The (^resent appeal arisesoutofthe judgmenfc and ©rcter dated 31.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (R'C)y Bilaspur In Sessions Triat No. 226/2007 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and sentencing each of them to unctergo rigorous imprlsonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. lyOOO u/s 498-A and to undergo rigorous jmpri»>nm®ntfor seven years u/s 304-B, in defautt of payment of flne to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the deceased Anita Bal was solemnized with appellant No.2, Vinod Kumarin the month of Marchy 2005. Appeltant Nos. 1, Gore Lal and appetlant No.3, Tulsi Bai are the father-in-iaw anct mother-in- taw of the deceased Anita Bai. It is aiteged that on 16.07.2007 the deceased consumed some polsonous substance as a result of which she died that day itself. Merg tntimation Ex. P-14 was given by Chamra Sahu (PW-4)- the father of the deceased and after pretiminary investigationy FIR ^—^~ 2^ —2." Ex. P-15 was registered on 01,08.2007 against the accused persons under sections 498-A and 304-B read with sectton 34 of IPC. After completjon of investigation/ challan was fiied on 11.10.2007. 3. Soas to hold the accused/appeltants guilty, prosecution has examined 15 wltnesses »n support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in whtch they denied the charges levelled against them andpleaded their innocence and false impllcation in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court hiis convicted and sentenced the accusec(/9ppellants for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appetlants is that present is a case where unfortunatelY there used to be some dispute between husband and wife t.e. the appellant No.2 Vinod Kumar and the deceasect Anita Bai an^ because of that, the deceased committed suicide. She submits that on account of death of the deceasect, her parents and other relatives have made false aliegations against appellants and merely on the basis of those generai altegatlons the appellants have been convicted. Counsel for the appellants has referred the statement of Puratan Bai (PW-3), Chamra Sahu (PW-4), Klrti Sahu (PW-5)/ Ramesh Kumar Sahu (PW- 12), Sun Bal (PW-13) and Ganga Bai (W-X4). According to her, from the reading ofthe statement of these witnesses it is clear that after death of Anita Bal, the deceased, they decided to falsely implicate the appellants and that is why the entire exercise has been done. 6. On the other hand supporting the tmpugnecl judgment It has been argued by the learned State Counset that the 39- convlction of the accused/appellants Is strietly in accordance with law and there is no jnfirmity in the same. He submits that had the deceased not been subjected to cruelty by the appeljants/ she would not have diect within two years of her marriage. He submits that from Ex. P-5 81 6, which are the agreements between the deceased and her husbanct Vjnoct, It js clear that the couple was having serlous dtspute. Me further submits that in the case ofdowry death no teniency shouid be shown to the appeltants and thetr convfcUon may be majntalned, 7. The c^se of the prosecutlon is matnty based on the evictence of Puratan Bai (PW-3) StChamra Sahti (PW-4)— mother and father of the deceased, Ramesh Kumar Sahu (PW-12) & Kirti Sahu (PW-5) - brother andsjsteMn-law of the deceased, Sun Bai (PW-X3) & Ganga Bai (RW-14)- neighbours of the deceased. Puratan Bai (PW-3) - mother of the deceased tn her Court statement has stated that I'rtarrtage of her daiughter was solemnized with appellant No.2 Vtnod some tlme tn the m@ntt"» of March/April 2005 but the 'Gouna' ceremony was perfomNKt after 12 months of the marrlage and thereaft@rh®rdaygtiter went to her in-laws house along with appetlant No,2 VtnoGl. After about a month from'Gounai when her etaughter came back to her house she hact informed her that the appeUants were demanding coiour T.v., refrigerator, vehlcl®,g©ldyN^er, etc. and maltreating her. She hi^furtt^r stateclthat the appeltants were harassing her dayghter for demarwt of clovwy and therefore on the second occasion when her d9U9hter came to her hoyse, she stayed there f!or about flve months and when the appellant No.l came to take her, her husbancl and some villagers had accompanjed him and her ctaughter to the house of the appetlants. At the time of dettvery of other -4- two daughters of thls wltness,her younger son had gone to take the deceased but she was not sent wtth him and the deceased had sent a message through neighbour Chhalia that she was in difFiculty. Thereafter her son Ramesh (PW-12) had gone to see the deceased and he was informect by the deceased that she was in a great djfficutty due to non- futfjllment of demand of dowry. Accordjng to her the accused/appellants gave poison to her daughter as a result of which she died. In cross-examination this witness states that (t is her family members who had first gone to the house of the accused/appellants and as they liked the famijy of the appellants, the marriage was fixect but no dowry whateoever was settled between the parties. At the time oT TOarrlage, some artictes were given as dowry to her daughterand thereafter ^Gouna' ceremony was performed. She has stated that at the ttme of 'Gouna' ceremony no demand of clowr/ was made by the appellants. She hasfurther statied that on the fourth day of marrtage, a rellglous custom of VC/rout/?a' was performed and in that functlon when her famity members had gone to the house of the appellants, they were welt treated by the appeilants and therewas no complaint. She has further stated that after>Gounat twice her daughter had gone to her in-laws house, stayed there and came back without making any complaint. According to thts witness, there was some misunderstanding between her daughter anct appellant No.2 Vinod for whlch a vlttage meetln^ was convened in the viltage <rf the appeltants and an agreement was executed by the appellant No.2 and the dece^sed on a stamp paper in presence of Panchas of the villsige and thereafterthe coupie haci agreed 1:0 live happtly. Afterthe salt meetlng this wltness had been to the house of her daughter twlce. In paragraph-5 of cross-examination, there appears to 1. (S be matertal improvements in the statement of thts witness because in her case dlary statement thls witness has not disclosed the fact that after receivlng the Information about N1 treatment to her daughter she had sent her son to look after her daughter and (n tum her son had Informed her atwut the cruelty meted out to the deceased and likewise there appears to be materiat omisslons in the statement of thts witness from thal of the statement made by her to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She has admitted the fact that she is not aware as to on what day and date her daughter was subjected to cruelty. Chamra Ram (PW-4) - father of the decea^Gl has ftrst stated about the marriage of hls daughter wtth the accusect/appellant No.2 Vinod then has stated that after receiving information about the death of his daughter when he went to the house of the acGused/appellants, he saw the dead body of his daughter and thereafter he lodged the report before the police station and his statement was recordect. Me has also made the similar ajlegation of demand of T.v, Refrjgerator, motor-cycle etc. by the appellants as made by his wife Puratan Bai (PW-3). He has further stated that as there was some dispute between husband and wlfe, the agreements Exs. P-5 & 6 were executed by the Goupte In presence of viltagers and thereafter the cteceased Uvect wlttv the appeltant No.2 for about fpyr monthSr Thte w ness a1$© admite the fact that after seeing the famtty ofthe appellants, mamage of his claughter was settled and whenevcr Ns lamily members would go to the house of the appetlants, they were well treated. Me has further stated that after marriage when for the first time hls daughter came back to his house, she stayed there for about one month and there was no comptaint by her against the appellants. The accused^ppellant No.l came to hls house for taking back the cteceased and she wg^ ® -6- sent along wlth him wtthout there being any complatnt and even at that time no dowry was demanded. Thereafter hts daughter stayed in her jn-laws' house for about: fow months. On jnstruction of his son this wltness got his daughter back to his house and she stayed there for about four months and there was no complaint by heragainst the appetlants. He has stated that when for about four months nobody came to take his daughter, he himself went along with Panchas of the village to the house of the accused/appellant No.l and the djspute was resolved by the Panchas between husband and wife and both were made to understand and the eouple agreed to live happfly after execution of Ex, P-5 & 6. He admits the fact that np report whatsoever was lOGlged by him before the death of hls daughter and after about one month of execution of the agreement he and his wife (PW-3) had gone to the house of the appellants separately to see the deceased but she had not made any complaint. Me has stated that on the date of incident the accused/appellant No.l eame to him and on being asked he had informed that everything is fine In the house. From Paragraph-7 of the statement of this witness there appears to be materlal omissions from that of made by him before the police. Smt. Kirti Sahu (PW-5) the sister-in-iaw of the deceased has made atmost slmilar statement as made by Puratan Bai (PW-3) and Chamra Sahu (PW-4), Mowever in Paragraph-7 of her cross-examination she has stated that the fact of cruelty as informed to her by the deceased was never disclosed by her to anyone titl her death. She has further admltted tlw fact that there was some mlsunderstanding fn the tbinteing of the accysed/appellant No.2 and the deceased, there usect to be some dispute between them, that is why they were not happy and the deceased came back to her parents' housd and she was not interested to go back to the house of the ^s"^ y .^^'.•^ '^ ^% s ! I. --5^ -7- accused/appellants but this wltness and other family members had made her understand that after some time there would be understanding and cordial relatton between husband and wife and therefore she should go back to her jn- laws house. She has admitted the fact that on account of death of the deceased the entlre family was very upset. The family was havlng anger agatnsl the accused/appellants and theretore they cleGJded to tea^i them a tesson thinking that a$ their davghter is no more, what is the use of keeping relations with the accused/appellante. in paragraph-8/ she has stated that when for about one month the appellants were not arrested, her husband went to the police and made efforts to ensure their arrest. Thereafter statemant of the witnesses recorded afresh and than th® accused/appellants were arrested. She has further admitted the fact that to ensure the arrest of the accused persons, after one and a half months of the death of the deceased they made the statement to the police making altegation for demand of dowry and torture. She has further adniitted the fact that her family members were keen to see the accused/appellants to be punished and that is why they are making statement against them. Ramesh Kumar (PW-12) - the brother of the deceased has made simllar atlegations as made by his mother (PW-3), father (PW-4) and wife (PW-5). Sun Bai (PW-13) - a retative of the deceased has stated that the accused/appellants used to torture the deceased for demand of motor-cycle, T.V. Freeze and other Items. The statement ofthis wltness reveals that she has made very general allegatlons againsfc the appellants and she never met the appetlants except at the time of marriage. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the statement of this h -^- wltness makes it clear that there are material contradictlons and omissjons In her statement. Similar is the posjtjon with Ganga Bai (PW-14) who too has made very genera! allegatlons and In her statement atsp there fppears to be material omjsslons and contracljctions, .Iltendra Kumar Koushik (PW-l) is a wltness of Inquest and selzure byt has been deelared hostlle, Strughan Prasad (PW-2) Is a witness to the Ex. P-5 & 6 has categorically stated that in the Panchayat, there was no allegation regardlng demand of dowry and only difference of optnion ancf thinking between the couple was reported. Me has further stated that after execution of the agreement when he met the deceased she had informed him that she was Ijving very happity w h the appellants and this wjtness never heard anycomplaint agatnst the appeliants. Dr. Gita Ohdar (PW-6) and Dr, Davesh Pradhan (PW-ll) had done the post mortem of the deeeasect and their report is Ex. P-7. According to them, the cause of death of the deceased could only be given after getting visGera report. Kashiram (PW-7) has not supporte^ the prosecutjon case and has been declared hostlte. Vljiiy Kuzur and J. Uramb (PWs " 8 & 9) are formal witnesses, Hemant Khare (PW-10) is the Inspector of Potice who had ctone the part of jnvestigatjon. Vivek Shukla (PW-IS) ts the Investigatjng OfFicer who has supported the case of the prosecution. 8. According to the FSL report Ex, P-228, insecttGldes was found tn the vtscera of the d^ceased anct tf thls FSL report is8 seen in the contest of the post mortem report Ex.P-7 makes clear that the deceased died on account of consumtng poisonous substance. Another important aspect for consideration of this case is ©<s. 5 & 6 whlch are the agreement executed by the deceased Anita and the appeUant ^ ^ .-q- No.2 Vinod and both agreements are havlng almost similar wording and reads as under: %> wfx.P-5 ~ That J/ Smfr. Antts @ai Sattu D/oCharwa Kam Sahu am reskSent of vlflage -Chhatouna, P.S, Wr// Wisfl- Takhalyurf DlsWct - Bifaspttr. I go^ marrled abcwt two yeyrs back wfth Vlnod Kumar SQhu S/o (^oresfaf Saffu I'esid^nt of village Sakra. Because of some obvious reasons tfwre was some mfsuncterstancfing between husband amf wlfe fn mir matrlmonfal relations however wfth effect from fxxlsiy i.e. 21.03.2007 we want to start our mQWmonfal Ws afi^sh amt for this purpose we have agreed in presence of <wr fafr/wr, brother and other members ofthe famfly." ff nEx.P-6 - That I, Vinod Kumar §9hu S/Q Gorefstl S9lw am resident of vfllage SakrQr P.S. HM, rahsif- rakhatpwrr Dfstrict - Bitaspur. I got marriecf about two years back wWf Smt Ansta 0al Sahu D/o Chamra Ram Sahu restelent of village- Chhatoiina. Because of some olyviotis reasons^ there was some mfsunclerstancling between husband sndwifie fn our matrimonfal relatfons however with effect from todlay i.e. 21.03.2007 we want tx> start our matrimonial fffte afresh an^ for thls purpose we have agreed in presence of our fatherr brother and other members of the family.ff ff A bare readlng of the above two agreemente reveals the fact that there was some misunderstandtng between husbanct and wife and there used to besome dispute between them even so they decided to start their Iffe afresh by resoNing their dispute. 9. Having gone through the entlre evldence avallable on record itappears that it was an unfbrtunate case where the couple could not adjust with each other but becayse of thts fact alone, it cannot be said that the deceased was subjected ^^^^\ ^••^^^ '^ •^,-' \ j -10- to cruelty by the accused/appellants. It ts further unfortunate that the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and subsequently allegations have b@en leveled against the accused/appellants. In such cases the minute examinatlon of the wltnesses becomes a must and In the case in hand most of the witnesses have made stereo- type of allegations against the accused persons and they appears to be generat in nature. So far as the demand of artides vlz. T.V, Refrigerator, vehicle, stlver, goM etc. is concerned even the witnesses have faried to de^ose as to on what date and In which month or on which occasion the said demand was made by whtch of the partteular accused/appellant. As the ailegations are not very speciftc, It is difyjcult for this Court to believe the same especlally tn view of thestatement of Kirti Sahu (PW-5)/theslster-ln-taw of the deceased. 10. Further there is no evidence on record to show lihat soon before death the deceased was sufcyected to cruetty or harassment by the accused/appellants. Though tn respect of the so called demand of certain Stems some evldence has been adducecl by the prosecution but that does not Inspire full confidence of this Court to uphold the convrctton of the appellants and that being so beneflt of doubt must 90 in favour of the accused/appeltants. II. Accordingly/ the appeal is atlowed.lmpugned ludgment dated 31.07.2008 convicting and sentencing the accused/appeljants is hereby set aside. Accusect/appetlants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them, As the appeltants are reported to be in jall, they be set free forthwith if not required In any other case. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge