M THE HIGH.03UBI OF MA.IHTA PHAD.BSHAS JABALPUB GBMmAL APPEAL N0 ,97,. OF 1990 1.Kalyani Devi wife of Dhananjay Shukla, aged l(-5' y'ears,r/o TadbwaPaTa/Sarkanda, Bilaspur./M.P. /' 2.3unandini Pandey wife of S £..'psa&ey , aged &3 years,r/o Ballway Golory, Bilasuur.M.P. APPELLAira'S ^oa^StT' Versus; The State of Madbya Pradesb^- Sespondent. CRIl-iINAL APPSAL_.IB®ER_SBCTION_3714-(2) 0£ THE CODS OF (3.WDS&L PBOCSDQaB. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 1990 APPELLANTS Kalyani Devi and another. VERSUS RESPONDENT . State of Madhya Pradesh Shri R.N. Jha counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. CRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (28.04.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 240/1988 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and sentencing each ofthem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2000 u/s 306 and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000 u/s 498-A IPC, plus default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of deceased Nand Kishori was solemnized with one Suni! Kumar Shukla - the son of accused/appellant No.1 and brother of accused/appellant No.2 herein on 25.5.1987. Further case of the prosecution is that on 12.5.1988 the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home by setting herself on fire. Merg Ex, P-15 was registered on the same day i.e. 12.5.1988 and based on that FIR Ex. P-21 was registered against the accused/appellants for the offence under Section 306 IPC. After investigation challan was filed by the police on 12.6.1988 and the accused/appellants were prosecuted for the offences under sections 306 and 498-A IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 23 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 the charges ii ""%^a»t» M / w levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, statements of Padumlal and Basant Sharma (DW-1 and DW-2 respectively) were also recorded by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC are not made out against the accused/appellants. He submits that unfortunately the deceased could not adjust herself with the accused/appellants and the husband as well and therefore she took such a drastic step of ending her life by setting herselfafire. According to the counsel for the appellants, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to base the conviction of the accused/appellants for the offences detailed above. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supporting the judgment impugned submits that the findings recorded by the Court below being in consonance with the material available on record are just and proper and no interference therewith is required by this Court. 8. Accused/appellant No.1 namely Kalyani Devi is the mother-in- law of the deceased whereas accused/appellant No.2 namely Sunandini Pandey is her married sister-in-law. From the evidence available on record it appears that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with one Sunil Kumar Shukla on 25.5.1987. On 25.5.1987 itself marriage of the sister of the deceased namely Shashikala was also solemnized. From the statements of the witnesses it appears that the Baratis of the sister of the deceased were treated well whereas those of the deceased did not get proper treatment which led to certain dispute between the two families.,' Evidence on record also reflects that on account of 'this minor dispute, deceased was not permitted to visit her parents' house as a result of which she was unhappy and took an extreme step of commission of suicide. This factual aspect of the matter is duly supported by Shyam Kumar Sharma (PW-1), Ram Kinker Shukla (PW-3), Kamal Prasad (PW-4) - the father of the deceased, Nand Kishore Sharma (PW-10) and Smt. Revti Bai (PW-13) - mother of the deceased. These important witnesses have not stated anything specific against the accused/appellants on the basis of which the offence under sections 306 or 498-A IPC can be made out against them. Even assuming that the deceased was not permitted by the accused/appellants to visit her maternal home, it would not constitute the offences uhder Sections 498-A or 306 IPC because to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC,the abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC has to be there which in this case is totally amiss. For ready reference the provisions of Section 107 IPC are reproduced as under: Section 107. Apersohabetsthedoingofa thing, who First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing ofthat thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing oftbatthing. Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, orby willful concealment ofa material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntahly causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to orat the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." Similarly, the allegations made against the accused/appellants do not constitute even the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Provisions ofSection 498-A IPC are given below: "Husband or relative or husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty "• '-"^ ' -*^'^ !st^ "I •\. 4, —l-i_ shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." The only witness who has made some allegation against the accused/appellants is the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Revti Bai (PW-13). This witness has stated that the accused/appellants used to pass taunt on the deceased that the promise to give a gold chain in the marriage has not been kept by her parents which by no streteh of imagination can be termed as cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. 9. Thus in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion this Court could not lay hands on the testimony of even a single witness who has specifically deposed that the act of the accused/appellants was as such which had forced the deceased to end her life. The allegations made against the appellants cannot at all be said to bring the provisions of sections 306 or 498-A IPC into operation. In this view of the matter the findings recorded by the Court below appear to be ill-grounded and therefore, the same have to be set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are already on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^i