.;(.»::i.: K.ii1 :i^'....-r .<Ki ^:31s:ig'|s^ai6HSenaT^s";WB^ff ^^ff'tS»^:^^»^^^J^^;j^t^^^MK^^.^^^^ ?^gi3a^B^;®^::::l!»':^:]Baft^%iiRg®t'i2:gN3leJf ' ^K®ft:^i';^i ^K'~>/'::SsffS:S '.alg^ w ^sSB^^ffiK,Eip!%1aca.yaaa|l;^ ;3'^^~.::s:^>^S :;^^:;^ys^^''.^^ '2.^^>tlA-i^Saa:,^a,g^^:45g%®<a'% .% (»»BS8E%gflBa;l.<3BaiBara:j .B;®^'irs»$a»^fiB;^«fc^;yil:il.agSgSa|ge]*a',K ¥,eI:Ep«:^AS|^^^:11ctoEfei ^^BjSgsE®|^ .BflAffg^^.^;^^:;^^'is^'^^A,^,;^^ -yl.;^fe':':^TsapsaB^^:l^l;;::^.'/-';;:.:,% ^"•:a21 l:i'^Bes:»8BA:«Ktas;^;'''3'6e:?£1ya'68?..s®: ^j^^^^::''^i.^,';^i::^.;'^,i,^^^^ l:^S3^-'/.:..: .•:;:$^: ?';,;'^- ^^f^mSW'W'ss^^^WiMWSiS^WUiV^SScSU 'iw5ss [^^:M ^?iff';3BI ^S6 Bi3 r?? \(^'-'- ><>1 HI6H COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT_BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker &iwaker Crimmal ^ppeal No. 694 of 1993 APPELLAWS (In Jail) RESPONDEhrT Ramadhar and csnother Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now • Chhattisgarh) Shri Vivek Sharma with Shri Rajesh Tiwari, counsel for the appeilonts. Shri Pankaj Shriyastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTtON 374 (2) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE JU &6ME NT (11.02,2010) This appeai is directed against the impugned judgment dated 8.7.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distt. Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 189/1992 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each. 2. As per the case of the prosecution on 7.5.1991 appetiant No. 1 Ramadhar lodged the report {Ex.D3(C}} before the Police Station, Malkharoda alleging in it that on the same day at about 10 O'clock in the morning his wife Rohini Bai had set herself on fire. On the basis of this report, case was registered against the deceased Rohini Devi vide Crime No.74/1991.f9'r the offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penai'Cods. '-*- • The fact reveals that subsequently on 7.5.1991 !+se!f deceased Rohini Bai had expired and merg was registered vide (Ex.P-8), thereafter, father of the deceased ndmely ftddNShyam (PW-1) lodged the written report (Ex.P-1) on g B 12.5.1991 alleging in it that his daughter was subjected to cruelty by the appellants and the appellant No. 2 - father-'n- law of the deceased used to look her with an evi! intention. On the basis of this written report FIR (Ex.P-14) was registered against the appellants on 12.5.1991 itself ond after investigation, challan was filed agoinst the appellants cmd the sister-in-law of the deceased. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has exarnined cs many o.s 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorde.d under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge leveled against them and pleaded their innocen.ee and faise implication in the case. This apar!-, witnes-ses namely Vanshpati Singh (DW-1) and Noni Bai (DW-2) have also been examined by ths defence in support of its case. 4. By the impugned judgment the court' below has though acquitted the co-accused Kera Bai- sister-in-law of the deceased for theoffence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code but ho.s convicted the appellants for the said offence and has sentenced rigorous imprisonment for five yearseach. 5.^. Counsel for the appetlants submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is token as it is, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out because the basic '•^ . ingredients of Section 306T:PC !n particulor Ssction 107 IPC are not attracted in the present case. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned Judgment and submits that the findings recorded by. the Court below being based on the evidence '^ ,-^. p !!^. adduced by the prosecution, are fully justified and no interference with the same is warranted. 7. I have hsard lear'ned counsel for the parties at length and perused the moterial o.vai!ab!e on record including the judgment impugned. Radheshyam (PW-1) in h.is statement has stated that after marriage, for about 6 months the deceased was kept very wel! by the accused persons, thereafter; she was subjected to cruelty by.them. She has stated that on one occasion the deceased came to his house and then the appellant No. 1 has refused to take her by saying that the deceased abused his father and mother. He further states that deceased had informed him th.at her fathsr-in-iaw used to look her with an evil intention. He also states that thereafter it is he who dropped the deceased to her matrimoniai house, however, he also statefi that appellait No. l has also asked for certain ornaments from the deceased. From the statement of this witness it appears that he hasexaggerated his ver-sion in the Court. Bhupendra (PW-2) one of ths relative of the deceased has stated that the deceased has informed him that she is being harassed for smat! things. He further states that deceased had informed him that her father-in-law used to look her with an evi! intention. He also states thot for about one year decearfed stayed in her parents" house and thereafter, she was taken to her matrinwnia! house by her father. 9. AAunuram (PW-3) - one of the villagers has stated that there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellants and efforts were made by the vitlagers to resolve the said dispute. Omprakash (PW-4) - neighbour of the ^^jX.Ip.l ili.'r'~4 '\ s. i^i1-;. Vi¥V3 ^^''^ flf?J? ^ appellants has stated that he used to ta!k the deceased but she has never disclosed about any such cruelty. l-1eeralal (PW-5) has not made any specific aliegations against the accused. Sujauram (PW-6) has stated thort- the deceased was living happily in her matrimonial house and on the date of incident when he heard that deceosed had set herself on fire, he had gone to extinguish the fire. Saneshram (PW-7) is the seizure witness of Ex.P-5. Nandram (PW-8) is the patwari who had prepared the spot map. Dr. AA. Bhagot (PW-11) had conducted the postmort'em of the deceased. Bhuneshwar Prasad (PW-12) has stated that there used to be some dispute between the deeeceed and the appellants. 10. Vanshpati Singh (DW-1) - Head Constable hasstated in his evidence that he had made entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No. 271 on the basis of which. Crime No.74/1991 wos registered against the deceased for the offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Noni Bai (DW-2) - neighbour of the accused persons has stated that on the date of incident there was some altercation between the deceased and her mother-in-law and immedioitely thereafter she committed suicide. She has further stated that deceased was of irritating nature, however, appellants never used to fight with her. It has bsen argued' that in these circumstances, the present appellants'ai<e entitled for benefit of doubt. t . -•c?* 11. Keeping in view the in9redients of Sections 306 and 107 IPC, evidence as adduced by th.e prosecution, I am of the considered view that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in ihe instant case for an offence under Section 306 ^ •^"•^'ttt -^ "^^ -tSs:, I -._..•'l-f l-^f^ IPC. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an 'abetment' for the commission of the crime. Accordingly, in the present case Offence under Section 306 IPC is not madeout against the appellants/accused. 12. In the result, the crimina! appeal succeedsand is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Court- below convicting and sentencing the appellcmts/accused under Section 306 of the Indian Pena! Code isset aside. The appellants/aGcused are acquitted of thecharge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants/accused are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds stond discharged. "Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^ •X w-