^ -^/^^~- '^[ft ]af^x c>5^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.646 of 1 997 APPELLANTS: 1. 2. Shobit Ram, son of Siyaram Sahu, aged 25 years Devsir Bai, wife of Siyaram Sahu, aged 45 years Both labourers and residents of Village Binori, P.S. Palari, District R$ipur (MP) (now CG) Versus RESPONDENT: The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Through PS Palari, District Raipur, MP (now CG) Present: Shri J.R. Verma, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Vivek Sharmg, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ^.^' i'. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J JUDGMENT (15-6-2011) The following judgment ofthe Court was delivered by Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 1-3-1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in S.T. No.91/90 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of the IPC and sentenced each ofthem to undergo R.l. for 3 years & to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, ip/default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 6 ». / months and to undergo R.l. for 10 years & to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 6 months respectively. ^ ^ ;?:^ ^V! 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that accused/appellant No.1 Shobit Ram is the husband of deceased Tijan Bai whereas accused/appellant No.2 Devsir Bai is the mother of accused/appellant No.1 i.e. mother-in- law of the deceased. The marriage of accused/appellant No.1 was solemnized with deceased Tijan Bai 2 years pr'or to the date of the incident i.e. 24-4-1989. On 24-4-1989 at about 10-11 pm the deceased died in suspicious circumsfances. On 25-4-1989, merg . intimation (Ex.-P/1) was given by Bhav Singh (PW-2), father of the deceased, alleging therein that the deceased has died after consuming some poisonous substance. Based on this merg intimation, on 25-4- 1989 itself, FIR (Ex.-P/1) was registered against the accused/ appellants under Section 306/34 of the IPC. 3. After investigation on 12-6-1989 challan was filed by the police under Section 306/34 of the IPC, however, while framing charges, learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, whereas one defence witness namely Suluram was also examined. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the m^terial appearing against them in the prosecution evidepce and pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearihg learned counsel for the respective parties, the trial Court convicted and sepftenced theaccused/appellants as mentioned above. te^St'^ ft;l»s>. ';;v^'i'^ "SBI 6. Contentionof Shri J.R. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the deceased died on account of acute dysentery and there is no evidence on record that any poisonous substance was given to her. He submits that as the deceased expired, total false allegations have been leveled against the appellants by Bhav Singh (PW-2) whereas, mother of the deceased Jethiya Bai (PW-1) has not made any specific allegation against the accused/a^pellants. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, that conviction of the accused/appellants is strictly in accordance with law, 8. PW-1 Jethiya Bai has stated in her Court evidence that the marriage of her daughter i.e. the deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant No.1 about 2 years back and after the marriage, the deceased used to visit her house and used to inform that the accused/appellants were harassing her, however, the deceased had not informed her as to why they used to beat and harass her. She has further stated that after marriage, for their livelihood, accused/appellant No.1 and the deceased had gone to Delhi and at the time of marriage of her son, the deceased could not be informed, as she was in Delhi. 9. PW-2 Bhav Singh, father of the deceased, has stated that on the date of the incident he took the deceased to the house of the accused/ >. / appellants and on the second day he received information from uncle of accused/appellant No.1 and one villager that condition of the deceased yias not good. He has stated that when he had dropped the deceased to theihouse of the accused/appellants, accused/appellant No.2 had not permitted the deceased to touch her feet and there was some dispute. He has further stated that when he reached the house of the deceased, he came to know that she has expired and then he lodged the report. He has admitted the fact that though he had informed the police about the incident of not permitting the deceased to touch feet of her mother-in-law and accused/appellant No.1 called him treacherous, but if the said stateme;rtt is not recorded by the police, then he cannot tell the reason. He has further admitted the fact that Ferha Sahu had informed him that the deceased is suffering from dysentery and her condition is not good. He has further admitted the fact that as he was sick, accused/appellant No.1 had dropped the deceased to his house. 10. PW-3 Hirau, PW-4 Sukhin Bai, PW-9 Banuram Sahu and PW-11 Sevakram have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostite. PW-5 Budhram Verma prepared the spot map (Ex.- P/5). Mohanlal (PW-6), who is a witness of inquest and seizure (Ex.- P/2 & Ex.-P/7), has not made any specific allegation against the accused/appellants. 11. PW-8 Dr. R.P. Pandey conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report of Ex.-P/10. He has stated that viscera of the/deceased was preserved and was sent for chemical . / examination: He opined that cause of death could only be given after viscera report. PW-10 Suraj Prasad Tiwari, Constable, took the dead body of the deeeased for postmortem and has made seizure (Ex.-P/S). PW-12 K.L. Uike is me:-lnvestigating Officer. 3s 'y- @ 12. l have heard learned counsel for the parties. l have perused the record ofthe trial Court as also the impugned judgment. l3.Admittedly, there is no viscera report nor there is any other document to show that the deceased died after consuming some poisonous substance. The evidence rather reflects that the deceased was suffering from dysentery. DW-1 Suluram has also made categorical *>" statement to this effect. ' l4.Jethiya Bai (PW-1) has also not made any specific allegation against the accused persons and merely on the basis of general allegations as made by PW-2 Bhav Singh, it cannot be safely held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellants. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the deceased was abetted in any manner by the accused persons which led her to take extreme step of committing suicide. Even in the postmortem report (Ex.-P/10), causeofdeath ofthe deceased has not been assigned. 15.1n view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that being so the benefit of doubt must go to the accused/appellants. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby / ./ set asida. The accused/app611ants are acquitted of the charges leveled agairist them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Barve