@ ' Sinqk Bench {€réminal? « ‘ ‘ ‘t ‘ { ‘ K v” SOn of Pukhau Sahu; ’ -Both Cultivators and residents o£ Village Kuthor, Police‘ Station Pamga’lrh, District Bila313ur,M. 13., » h 1.1 I verSU. S gespondgggi The_- State ‘of Ma<ih§§a Pradesh. ’ ( CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S wilg) CODE: OF CRII/IINAL'PROCEDgggiigQ g1 Illiwyzuaumwm g ¥ IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Q Criminal Appeal Ne. 25? of .1994- Agpeliants: m1. Basan£ Kumarfwag’e‘: w tw'E8 yea-‘5, “fi Accus'ed // f) kin Jail) * son of. Shri Bhagxmt‘x Pra’séd; ‘ 2E, Bhagwati Prasad Sahu’; aged 50 years, w (av HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1994 APPELLANTS Basant Kumar and another. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri B.M.K. Bajpai counsel for the appellants Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for the respondent/State. QRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (27.01 .201 0) . This appe'a! is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shakti, District Bilaspur in S§essions Trial No. 225/1989 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 306, 498—A and 201 of the Indian Renal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 3000 each u/s 306 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000 u/s 498—A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000 u/s 201 IPC with default stipulations. 2. Brief factual matrix relevant to dispose of the case in hand, is recapitulated thus. On 16.8.1988 merg (Ex.P-11) Was registered on v" the basis of an information received from SDO (P) B.L. Raj (PW-10) in which it was mentioned that one Hari Bai of village Kuthur had died an unnatural death. On the basis of this merg investigation was conducted by the Police and ultimately after about one month FIR (Ex. P,-13) was registered against the accused/appellants on 16.9.1988. lt is alleged that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused/appellant Basant Kumar‘six years prior ‘ to the date of incident and since beginning she was subjected to I cruelty by the accused/appellants. eLs l l 3. So as to hold thé accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 11‘ witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the. Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied _2~ the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, three 'witnesses namely Gendram (DW—1), Motilal (DW—2) and BhagwatPrasad (DW—3) have also been examined by the defence in support of its case. .4. 1 V " After hearing the' parties the trial Court has convicted and above. sentenced the accused / appellants for the offences mentioned A . 5 Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugnéd. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that as the appellant No.1 Basant Kumar has already undergone the entire sentence imposed on him, he is not prosecuting this appeal so far as it relates to him and would confine his argument only with respect to accused/appellant.Bhagwati Prasad Sahu — the father in law of the deceased. He submits that the main allegations are against accused/appellant Basant Kumar but unfortunately on the basis of general and omnibus allegations made against appellant Bha'gwati Prasad Sahu, he has also been convicted far the offences mentioned above. He submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is no case under sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC is made out against accused/appellant Bhagwati Prasad Sahu. 7. On the other handgounsel for the respondent/State supports ‘ 9the i impugned judgment and ‘ submits that the findings recorded byl i the Court below being based on the evidence adduced by thel prosecution are fully justified and no interference with the same isf warranted. l @E __g_ 8. As the appeal concerning appellant Basant Kumar is not being pressed on merits, the judgment impugned convicting him for the offences described above, is hereby maintained. U 9. As regards ‘accused/appeiiant Bhagwati Prasad Sahu, Shitalbai (PW—1), the mother of thedeceased has stated in her evidence that about two days after the death of her daughter (the deceased), her other son in Iaw namely Gendram had informed her that Hari Bai had died on account of burn injuries. She has stated that accused/appellant Basant Kumar — the husband of the dapeased used to ask the deceased for a motorcycle and about 15— 16 days prior to the date of incident; he had written a letter for and on behalf of Hari Bai demanding ornaments. She has further stated that accused/appellant Basant Kumar also used to ask the deceased to sell her land and give the ornaments to his wife. In the cross examination this witness has stated that so-called letter about which she has given a reference had been torn off by her and was not in her possession. Bairagi (PW—2) — the uncle of the deceased and Aasharam (PW-3) —— maternal grand father of the deceased have also not made any specific allegation against accused/appellant Bhagwati Prasad Sahu. The record thus goes to show that none of the witnesses including the mother of the deceased has made any specific allegation against accused/appellant Bhagwati Prasad Sahu to the effect that he ever subjected the deceased to cruelty which forced her to commit suiCide, and whatever allegation is there that is against the'accused/appellant Basant Kumar Who has already undergone the sentence awarded to him and his conviction is not being questioned in this appeal which consequently has been confirmed by this Court. Nonetheless, the prosecution has not been able to elicit anything against accused/appellant Bhagwati Prasad Sahu on the“ basis ofyvttich the provisions of Section 498—A IPC could be pressed in service. In other words. the. record hardly. speaks anything to the effect that the accused/appellant Bhagwati l Prasad Sahu has ever done anything like subjecting her to cruelty j which could attract the abetment defined under Section 107 IPC : l which necessitates his conviction under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution has also not been able to show that this accused has ever made any demand of dowry from the deceased and that being so his conviction under section 498-A IPC is paipably illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. wQ__ V 10. Aforesaid analytical discussion lends this Court on the firm cdnclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to adduce any evidence on the basis of which his conviction for the offences described above, can be sustained. Appeal is therefore allowed as far as accused/appellant Bhagwati Prasad Sahu is concerned. V Findings recorded by the éourt below convicting and sentencing this accused/appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges t levelled against him. He be set at liberty forthwith. /~ l A ¢ 7" Pritinker D‘Wake‘. 3;“‘ge a.All