1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH Criminal Appeal No.1827/1996 State of M.P. versus Shakti Singh, s/o Ram Singh, aged about 35 years, Occupation- Kashtkari, r/o Gram Babari, P.S. Shivpur, Tahsil Seoni Malwa, district Hoshangabad. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant/State: Shri B.P. Pandey, Dy. Government Advocate. For the Resp./accused: Shri S.K. Gangrade, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T (08.11.2011) State has filed this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 21st March 1996, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.135/1990, acquitting the respondent/accused Shakti Singh of the charge under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498- A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 1. Though an application for grant of leave to appeal was filed against all the three accused persons viz. Ram Singh, Shakti Singh and Smt. Thapubai, but, by order dated 9.10.1996, the leave was granted only against accused Shakti Singh. 2. In short, the facts of the prosecution case are that Phoolwatibai, 2 the deceased, was married to accused Shakti Singh about 12-13 years ago. Since then she was living with her husband (accused) in village Bawri. On 29.7.1989, she suffered burn injuries in her husband's house and died. A Murg report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by her uncle-in-law Anup Singh (PW-5) contending that Phoolwatibai suffered burn injuries while cooking food. 3. After inquest, the body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. V.D. Tiwari (PW-7) found 100% burn injuries on her body. No opinion about the nature of death was given. 4. On 31.7.1989, Ram Ratan (PW-2), the father of deceased, gave a written application (Ex.P/7) to police saying that all the accused persons including accused Shakti Singh harassed the deceased for not meeting the demand of dowry. They used not to provide food and clothes to her and used to manhandle her. Since they could not give Rs.5000/- in dowry, they killed her by setting fire to her. 5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Magistrate and the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions. 6. Before the trial court, prosecution examined Mahesh (PW-1), Ram Ratan (PW-2), Jagdish (PW-3), Bhagwatibai (PW-4) and Anup Singh (PW-5) to substantiate the accusation levelled against the accused. 7. Learned trial judge, upon trial and after appreciation of evidence, held the prosecution case not proved beyond doubt and acquitted all the accused persons of the charges. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, State has filed this appeal after obtaining leave, as aforesaid. 8. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the trial judge did not 3 appreciate the evidence properly and committed error in acquitting the accused Shakti Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not clinching, therefore, was not sufficient to bring home the charge. Trial Court committed no error in acquitting the accused. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. 11. From the evidence of Mahesh (PW-1), brother of deceased, Ram Ratan (PW-2), father of deceased, Jagdish (PW-3), cousin and Bhagwatibai (PW-4), Bhabhi of deceased, it is apparent that the marriage of deceased with the accused had taken place about 12-13 years ago. Though they stated that whenever deceased came to their house, she told to them that accused harassed and maltreated her for not meeting the demand of dowry and that he demanded Rs.5000/- from Ram Ratan, but all of them, on being confronted with their respective previous statements, could not explain as to why these facts were not disclosed by them earlier. In paragraph-10 of his statement Mahesh (PW-1) admitted that the facts about cruelty were not disclosed by him to police. His sister never told to him that accused ever assaulted her. Ram Ratan (PW-2) was confronted with his written report (Ex.P/7) wherein he did not disclose that deceased informed him about her Maar- Peet by the accused on the occasion of 'Sankranti'. He stated that accused told to him that father of another girl was ready to give Rs.20,000/- in dowry. This fact was not supported by any other witness. 4 He did not disclose in his police statement (Ex.D/2) that deceased made any complaint about the harassment being meted out to her by the accused. Jagdish (PW-3) and Bhagwatibai (PW-4) were also confronted with their respective police statements (Ex.D/5 and D/6) wherein they omitted to say anything about cruelty meted out to deceased. Anup Singh (PW-5), immediately after the incident lodged Murg report (Ex.P/1), contending that deceased got burn injuries while cooking food. 12. Dr. V.D. Tiwari (PW-7), who, alongwith two other doctors, conducted postmortem examination of the body of deceased, though stated that deceased suffered severe burn injuries, but did not say that these injuries were either homicidal or suicidal. From the evidence of Kedar Sharma (PW-6), Joint Collector, who conducted inquest proceedings, it is apparent that parents of deceased were present at the time of enquiry. However, there appeared nothing on record to indicate that they made any complaint to anybody about the misdeeds of accused. 13. After taking into consideration all the above aspects and after appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial judge held that it was not established beyond doubt that accused demanded dowry or subjected deceased to cruelty for not meeting the demand of dowry. Since the death of deceased had taken place more than 7 years after her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A was also not applicable, even if the death of deceased had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances. 14. In view of the fact that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial 5 court is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence, it is not open to this Court to substitute any contrary view to upset the finding of acquittal, especially when the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view. 15. After going through the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the trial court has committed no error in acquitting the accused, as such no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed. (Rakesh Saksena) Judge Shukla