•mijiij IX 3HB HI8H CQ.IE'I Qfi' M.V. W S^ta.SSS »A. Sb-. ^ &_5~?/33 ina'e Bench [U A.ffiBLlAKT /AlGCUSEQ ; { IB SSill ') Sait. Bdan Bai w/ct flta'ga aab.aB, age Su years r/o- Vtil. AcjUBaa,leli aBdatstt. Surg, x.1. Ifce State ol £.& GBIXEKAL A.EPBto U/S 374(2^S»_ OB*,Se, RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.07 12:29:06 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: CriminatADDeal No.1059of1993 Smt. Belan Bai Versus The State of M.P. (now fhe State of C.G.) th Postfor Dronouncement ofiudament on 19*" Auaust. 2010 Sd/- ' T. P. Sharma Judge ,."s?%,, ".r' jfls; HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Accusecl) (InJail) RESPONDENT: Criminal ADDeal No.1059 of 1993 Smt. Belan Bai w/o Durga Mahar, age SOyears r/oVill. Arjunda, Teh. & Distt. Durg, M.P. (now C.G.) Versus The State of M.P. (now the State of €.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. C.R. Sahu, counsel forthe appellantalong withthe appellant. Mr. R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J JUDGMENT (Deliveredonl 9th August, 2010) - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 30-10-93 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.83/92, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 498A & 306 of the .I.P.C.,' sentenced her to undergo R.l. for two years & five years, respectively. 2. Convicfion is impugned on the grQund thatwithout any iota of evidence of cruelty, torture and abetment to commit suicide, the frial Court has convieted&sentencedtheappellantandtherebycommittedillegality. 3. Case of the prosecutipn, in brief, is that Smt. Urmila Bai (since deceased) was married toson of the appellant and just after marriage, the appellant started committihg torture & cruelty upon the deceased on the ground of jllicit relation ofthe deceased with her father-in-law i.e. husband of the appellant. On 23-3-89 the appellant has committed torture & cruelty upon the deceased and compelled her to eommit suicide. The deceased poured kerosene oil upon her body and set herself ablaze. She was immediately shifted to Dhamtari Christjan Hospital where she wastreated vide Ex.P-1. Herdying declarationwas recorded vide Ex.P-2. Dyring her treatment, she lodged written FIR vide Ex.P-3. Thereafter, she was shifted to District Hospital, Durgwhereshe wastreated vide Ex.P-4. On the basis ofwritten FIR andthefact that the 'l -ilh ^ appellant has poured kerosene oil upon the deceased and set her ablaze,offence punishable under Sections 307 & 498Aof the I.P.C, has been registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-5. Burnt pjeces of cloth were seized vide Ex.P-7. Treatment formsand bed head ticket were seized vide Exs.P-11 & P-12. During the course of treatment, Smt. Urmila Bai died on 30-6-89. Herbody wascremated and thereafter on-2- 7-89 & 4-7-89 merg Exs.P-16 & P-18, respectively, were recorded. Panchnama of eremated body was prepared vlde Ex.P-15. Semi-burnt hairsand bones were seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded underSection 161 of the Gr.P.C.. AftercQmpletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Courtof Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg who in turn, committed the case to the Gourt of Sessions, Durg, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guiltofthe accused, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. The accysed was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied the circumstanees appeanng against her, pleaded innocence and false implication. She has also examined defeneewjtnessesPhulbati(DW-l) & Smt. Laxmj Bai (DW-2). Smt. Laxmi Bai (DW-2) has deposed that at the time of incident the appellant wassitting in her house.at that time, some persons came to herhouseand informedthat Urmila Baiwas burnton whichtheappellaht along with other persons went to her house whereshe saw her injured daughter-in-lawwho was injured as a result of burn injuries. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner, 7. I haveheard learnedcounsel for theparties, perusedthe judgment and record ofthe trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued thatas per the case ofthe prosecution, especially the written report of Urmila Bai (since deceased) and her dying declaration.theappellant hereinhas burnt the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her body and therefore, this is not the case of commission pf suicide by deceased Urmila Bai and in absence of commission of suicide, conviction under Section 306 of the ^^ .4/, ^ > <1^y I.P.C. is npt sustainable underthe law. Th.e prosecution has not prov.ed specific instances of torture &cruelty committed by the appellarit upon thedeceased, only on the groundof unnatural death of her daughter-in- law within one year of marriage,crimihal liability cannot be fastened upon mother-in-law i.e. theappellant herein. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for proving the fact that the appetlant herein - mdther-in-lawofthedeceased.hascommittedtorture&erueltyuponthe deceased, dragged andcompelled the deceased for commission of suicide and thereby, the deceased committed suicide. The trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant asaforementioned. 10.1norder to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalfof the p.arties, 1 have examined theevidenceaddycedonbehalfoftheparties. 11.In the present case, burn injuries on 23-3-89 and death of Urmila Bai on 30-6-89 have not been substantially disputed by the parties. On the other hand, evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and admission ofdefenceare sufficientfor drawing inferencethaton 23-3-89 Urmila Bai sustained burn injuries, she.wasshifted to hospital for treatment and during the course oftreatment she died on 30-6-89.' 12.As regards commission of torture & cruelty and abetment to commjt suicide, on behalfoftheappellant, the prosecution has plaeed reliance on Ex.P-3, thealleged typed complaint made by Urmila Bai (since deceased) to the policeon 23-5-89. Dhekul Ram (PW-4)-father of the deceased has proved signature on Ex.P-3. Ex.P-2 dying declaration of the deceased has been recorded by Executive Magistrate Ravi Prasad Sharma (PW-8) in which the deceased has deposed that her mother-in- law, the appellant herein, has set her ablaze, though her flrst medical examination report Ex.P-6 reveals that she had made complaintofbum by kerosene oil due to family problem. Dr. B. Dewangan (PW-7) who has firstly examjned thedeceased on 23-3-89 vide Ex.P-6has explained the injuries, but nothing has been asked to him relating to factum of dying declaration made by the deceased.in the shape of patient history. In these circumstarices, the prpsecution has adduced two sets of evidence, firsttythatthedeceasedherselfhas poured kerosene oil upon her body and set herself ablaze, thereby she attempted to commit -'t .;r v syicide and finally died as aresult of burn injuries and its complication. Secpnd set ofevidence is thsjt the appellant herein i.e.mother-in-law of the deceased has poured kerosene oil upon the deceased and set her ablaze. Both the facts are contradiGtoryto each other. Ifthe cleGeased herself has poured kerosene oil on her body and set herselfablazethen her death may be treated assuicide, but if the appellant has poured, kerosene oil on the deceasedand set her ablaze then, death of the deceased becomes homicidal. 13.In brderto prove culpability of a person, the prosecution is required to prove all essential ingredients by cogeht evidence. But in thepresent case, both thesetspfevidenceareeontradictorytoeachother. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on Ex.P-6 containing dying cleclaration of the deceased relating tocommission ofsuicide. The prosecution hasexamined Dr.B. Dewangan (PW-7)who has recorded Ex.P-6, but he has not deposed anything in his evidence relating.to factym ofsuch dying declaration.In absence of anyproofofsuch dying declaration it is difficult to hold that the deceased has made dying declarationas written in Ex.P-6 whichinspires confidence, especially in the light of her dying declaration Ex.P-2 recorded by the Executive Magistrate and wellcorroborated by the evidence of her father Dhekul Ram (PW-4). In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the deceased has committed suicide. In absence of any proof of commission of suicide the questionof instigation orabetment to commit suidde, in the present case, is ofno use. 14.As regards commissionof torture & cruelty by the appellant, Dashrathlal Kuthare (PW-2) - neighbourof the appellant, Sarita Wasnik(PW-3) - sister of the deeeased & Dhekul Ram (PW-4) - father of the deceased hadspecifically deposed that the appellant used to commit cryelty & forture upon her daughter-in-law i.e. the deceasedandthe deceased used to tell the factum oftorture & cruelty toher sister & father. Defence has cross-examjned these witnesses at length, but it has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examinationtodiscredit their testimony relating to commission oftorture & cruelty; Even the faetum of torture & crueltyfinds supportfrom dying declarafion.ofthedeceased Ex.P-2. 15.In caseof torture & cruelty to daughter-in-law in the house of her husband, normally independent evidence would not be possible. The l"">t»,,'iV"*<^* "^•tSx-SS"' Soma Court is required to assess the aforesaid factumon the basis ofevidence of relatives of the deceased and other circumstances. In the present case, dying dedaration ofthe deceased, evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and burn injuries foundon the body of the deceased are sufficient for drawing inference thattheappellant - mother-in-law of the deceased, who was in dominating position, used tocommit torture & cruelty upon her daughter-in-law, the deceased. 16.After appreciating the evidence available on record and cohsidering the case of defence, leamed Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellantunder Sections 498A & 306 of the I.P.C.. t 17.As regards conviction under Section 306 of the I.P.G., in the light of afpresaid discussion, conviction & sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of the I.P.C. are not sustainable under the law.. While convieting & sentencing the appellant; learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered theaforesaid legal position and thereby eommitted illegality. 18. However, conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is well founded and sustainable under the law. As regards sentence, learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo R.l. for two years under Section 498A of the I.P.C.. Considenng the nature of evidence.espeGially the fact that even the appellant used to assault the deceased, sentenceofR.I. for two years is neitherexcessive nor unjust. 19.Conseqyently, theappeal is partly allowed. Conviction&sentence of the appellant under Sectiori 306 ofthe I.P.C, are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. However, conviction & sentence of the appellant under Section 498A of the I.P.C. are hereby maintained. The appellant is on bail, she shall surrender immediately before theCourt of 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg orits suceessor- in-office for serving remaining sentence imposed upon her in Sessions Trial No.83/92. __ Sd/- , • • • . • T. P. Sharma Judge