;f" ^ .^'c-. •-1: < ,,.^wc^ .B.2 .^...il^t.f1"*1 ,)...*ln-'-^J'3 ^\ ^.I^KWV' ^ CF0000060558 IN THE HIGH COURT OP MADHtft PRADESH-AT JTiBALHJR., CRI.APEEAL N0, 3^^ of 1996 Appellan'ts Accused. l/ Bhtxneshwar s/o AinritlsJ^Sahu, ao^id 24 vrs/*' 2/&m'ri-fclal s/o.BhuMia^ha^Sahu, aged 55 yrs-; ^^. ~~. ;ed ^ Both eUil.1Ei-\'ators, R/o Budena / Arjuncia,Distt-Durg (M.p<'5 / : VERSUS /•' :': y' ' .ed' Responaents: The State of Madhys Pradesh / ,taltter '.TOroughtbe D.M.Surg/ ' / ./ • ' / • • ur... /' • . ^ :.. . 1~~ ":~r APEiSAL UNDER SECTION 37:4 CC? THE COOE OF .CRIMIN,^;KK^ f '. / L-- j?:ls^il HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (HOn. Mr. JUstice PritinkerDiwaker) Criminal Appeal N6.954 of1996 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Bhuneshwar and another Stateof Madhya Pradesh Shri D.N. Prajapaticounsel forthe appellants. Shri Ashish Gupta PL forthe respondenVState. CRIIVIINALAPPEALUNDERSECTION3740FTHECODEOF CRIMINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (14.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.5.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Durg in Sessions Trial No. 253/1992 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 306 IPC and sentencing each 6f them to undergo rigorous imprisonment fdr three years and pay fine of Rs. 500 in default 6f paiyment offineto further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the proseGution in brief is that marriage of the deceased namely Kachra Bai alias Kiran Bai was performed wifh accused/appellant No.1 herein in the year 1990. On 28.2.1992, according t6 the case of the prosecution.she consumed some poisonous substance resulting iff her death on 29.2.1992. Merg intimation Ex. P-12 was recorded on 29.2.1992 itself and thereafteron 3.3.1992 awritteii report Ex. P-2 was made by Kesuram (PW-2) -the father of the y^ceased making certain allegations against the present appellants and'Other family members. Based on this report, FIREx. P- 10 was registered on 3.3.1992 itself under section 304-B IPC against the present appellants, one Bhushan - the brother-in-law ofthe deceas.ed ahdAnsuiya Bai - the mother-in-law of the deceased. After "investigation challah was filed against the present appellants and two otherpersons for an offence under Section304-B IPC. ;.«i|i&!,, ^-Sf^ ^^s" 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statements ofthe accused persons were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure iawhich they denied the chargelevelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false impliGation in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted accused Bhushan and Ansuiya of the charge levelled against them. Present accused/appellants have also been acquitted of the charge under section 304-B buttheyhave been eonvicted underSection 306 IPC. 5. Heard counsel forthe parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the entirecase of the prosecution is taken as it is, offenca under Section 306 IPC is not made out against them. Me submits that when acting upon the same piece of evidence other two accused persons i.e. Bhushan and Ansuiya Bai have been acquitted of the charge leveled againstthem, the presenVappellants could also not have been convicted by the Court below. He submits that evidence of Girwar (PW-1) - the cousin ofthe deceased, Keshuram (PW-2) -father ofthe deceased, Tulia Bai(PW- 9) - mother of the deceased and Kripa Ram - the neighbour of fhe accused/appellants, does not make out a case under Section 306 IPC against the accused/appellants gs all of them have made an exaggerated vgr^ibn before the Court below. Lastly he submits that if this Court arrives at the condusion that the appellants have rightly been convicted, a lenient vjew may be taken as regards sentence awarded tothem. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State Supports the findingsrecorded by ttle Court below in the judgment impugned and submitsthat Girwar (PW-1) - the cousin of the deceased, Keshuram --?— (PW-2) - father of the deceased, Tulia Bai (PW-9) - mother of the deceased and Kripa Ram—the neighbour of the accused/appellahts have made specific allegation against the aGcused/appellantsand therefore the conviction and gentence awarded to them is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. Me submits that Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-5 are the letters of the accused/appellant N0.1 herein from which it is apparent that th.e deceased wassubjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused/appellants. 8. Girwar (PW-1) - the cousin of the deceased has statedthat marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year 1990 and for about oneyear she used to go to her parents' house but thereafter she stopped doing so. He has stated that on receiving the ihformation about the death of the deceased when he went to fhe house of the accused/appellants he came to know from accused/appellant No.2 herein that the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance but he did not disclose the reason therefor. According to this witness, withina year of her marriage, the dece^sed had come to her parents' house and informed that accused/appellant No.1 herein used to harass her for dowry. He has stated that the letter Ex. P-1 was seized in his presence. This witness has further stated that accused/appellant No.1 was working at Bhilai and residing there in a hut and that he was not aware as to where the other family members of accused/appellant No.1 were residing. Kesuram (PW-2) -the father ofthe deceased has stated that after marriage on 2-3 occasions the deceased had come t6 hishouse and informed that accused/appellantNo.1 herein used to beat her for demand of dowry. Accprding to this witness, a Panchayat jneeting was ^c^tfed in which an effort was made to bring about reconciliatioh in. the family. This witness has stated that after the Pancahayt meeting the deceased was sent to her matrimonial house alongwith accused/appellant No.1. He has stated that Ex. P-3 to P-5 are the letters received by him from acGused/appellant No.1 herein who at the relevant time was residing at Bhilai. Tikam Singh (PW-3) is the witness of seizure memo£x. P-7 under which some spray and a bottle were seized.-Dr.S.K. Chelani (PW-4) who had medically •/ ::.»»<; -<v-- examined the deceased has stated that she was brought to the hospital in an unconscious state and her condition was serious. Dr. K.K. Tamrakar (PW-5) who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of We deceased and given his report Ex. P-9 has stated that shewas broyght to the hospital after consumption of poison but he has not given any opinion regarding the cause of death. Lokhuram Sahu (PW-6) who was teacher in the school has stated that his wife had informed him that in-laws and other family members ofthe deceased were harassing the deceased. According to this witness, oncethe factum of harassment was informed by the deceased herself to his wife. He has stated that after the death of the deceased, her father had come to him and made a requestto accompany him to the police station for lodging the report. Sublnspector B.L. Pal (PW-7)who had done investigation in the case hassupported the case of the prosecution. Tuliya Bai (PW-9) - the mother of the deceased has stated that the accused pefsons were not giving proper clothing and food to her daughter. Thiswitness has however not made any speGific allegation against any of the accused persons. Kriparam (PW-10) - the neighbour of the accused/appellants has stated that there was some dispute between the two families and an effort for reGonciliation was also made. 9. Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-5 are the letters written by the accused/appellant No.1 herein. A bare reading ofthese letters goes to show that there was some misunderstanding between accused/appellant No.1 and the deceased. Thesaid letters also go to show fhat accused/appellant No.1 was having a lot of expectations -from his wfcFe/ivhich perhaps remained unfulfilled. According to the material availafale on record the unfortunate death of the deceased appears to be an out come of her non-adjustment with the accused persons but rtierely for that the accused/appellants cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Prosecution has failed to bringon record even a .single material to show that the act of the accusecl/appellantswas as^uch thaitthe provisions ofSection 306 IPC woutd be attFaeted in this case. Ingredients of abetment as is defined -jr'— under Section 107 IPC are totally missingin the case in hand as none of the witnesses has specifically stated that deceased was harassed to such an extent which drove her to embrace death by consuming poison. Though some ofthe witnesses havemade general allegations against the accused/appellant No.1 herein, it would hbt be a safer ground for his conviction u/s 306 IPC. In addition to this, the prosecution has utterly failed to provethat letters Ex. P-3 to P-5 are in thehandwriting ofthe accused/appellantNo.1 himself. Even motherof the deceased examined as PW-9 has not made any specific allegation against the accused/appellants. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this being the position the accused/appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgrrient impugned as regards convictionof the present appellants is set aside. They are acquitted 6f thecharge levelled against them. They are already on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Pritinker Diwaker Jadge ^ '. /