IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. Crlminal Appeal No. r^ 6 6 /2002. APPELLANT. (IN JAIL) RESPONDE1STT* Krishna Das Panika, s/o Shivnath Oas Panika, age 22 years, Occupation-Agri" culture^ r/o vlllage Jaipur, P.S. Darima» Dlst^ Surguja, C^G^ Y__B^L^ u_s. The State of CShhattisgarh, through P^S^ Darima, Dist, Sarguja, C»G» APPEAL_UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE* HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'bl®Mr. Justice PritJnker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No.866 of 2002 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Krishna Das Panika Versus The State of ^hhattjsgarh Shri A.K.Prasod,counsej for the appellant. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. GA. for the Stote/respondent. CRIMINAL /^PPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUD©MENT (10.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and order dated 13.8.2002 passed by 1 Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur, Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 136/2000 convicting the accused/appeliant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to furt-her undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months u/S 498-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/S 306 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of deceosed Jaimati Bai was solemnized with the accused/appeilant 9 months prior to 29.2.2000. Case of the prosecution is that on 29.2.2000 at about 4 am the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in guava tree near her matrimonial house. The merg intimation was given on 29.2.2000 vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 is the inquest report and on 7.3.2000 F.I.R. (Ex.P-7) was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 306 of the Indina Penal Code. After investigation challan was filed by the police on 29.3.2000 against the accused/appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Pend Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellont guilty, prosecution has examined as many os 9 witnesses in supporl" of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was ajso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence ond false implication in the case. Aparl' from this, witnesses nomely Shivnath Dois (bW-1) and Jhandidas (bW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support- of its case. 4. After heoring the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeliant for the offences as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Counse! for the appellant submits that the accused/appejlctnt has been convicted on the basis of the statements of Devkunwar (PW-1), Dhaneshwor (PW-2) ond AAunni Bai (PW-3) whereas if the statements of all these witnesses are token as it is, the offence under Sections498-A ond 306 is not made out. He furt-her submits that it is an unfort-unote case where the deceased could not adjust in the house of the accused/appellant and was not liking the cordial relations between the accused/oppellant ond his sister-in-iaw (Bhabhi). He furt-her submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offence under Section 'p^ ^. .-^' ^y ^. t^^'"^ b^;y ^s. 306 IPC is not made out because the basic ingredlents of Section 306 IPC in parf-icular Section 107 IPC are not attracted in the present case. 6. Supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by counsel for the State that had the appeliant not tortured the deceased, there was no occasion for her to commit suicide. He submits that from the statements of Devkunwar (PW-1), Dhaneshwar (PW-2) and Munni Bai (PW-3), there is ample evidence to show that deceased Jaimati Bai was subjected to harassment by the accused/appeliant. He submits that Motilal (PW-4) <& Fulwo (PW-6) have also supporl-ed the prosecution case. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material avaijobieon record incjuding jud9ment impugned. 8. Devkunwari (PW-1) - mother of the deceased has stated that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the appellant and after killing her, accused/appellant had hanged her dead body on a guava tree. She has further stated in her evidence that after receiving information about the death of her daughter when she had reached on the spot, she saw the dead body of her doughter honging. She has stated that jnquest was made and, thereafter, the body was tdken for post mprt-em and when she made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sarguja, after about a week she was cailed by Station House Officer ond her statement was recorded. According to this witness, sometime jn the month of September the deceosed came to her house and had tojd her thoct the appellant used to abuse ond beat her.She has dso stated that the appellant used to ca{| her 'natee' (Short' @ highted) and was having very cordial relations with her sister- in-jaw {Bhabhi). She has stated that the deceased had informed her thort- whenever she used to offer food to the appellant, he used to refuse whereas in case food is being offered by his sister-in-law {Bhabhi} he used to accept the same. She has further stated thot on account of all the above reasons, accused/appellont hod killed ond hanged her daughter. She has also stated that the accused/appeliant and his father used to bring her daughter to her house after every 8-15 doiys. She has also stated thot on the eve of local festival "Chherchhera" the accused/appeilant hod brou9ht her daughter to her house. From porographs 8 & 9 of her cross- exomination, it is apparent that there appears to be some omissions and controdictions in her statement. 9. Dhaneshwar (PW-2) - brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that after two weeks of morriage when the deceased came to her parents' house, had informed him that her husband used to quarrel ond beat her and does not take food and water from her. He has admitted the fact that obout 1-|- months of her marriage the deceased informed him about the quarrel between her and the accused/appellant and incident of not accepting the food and thereafter, on several occoisions deceased had come to his house but had not made any compldnt. He has further stated that whenever the husband and father-in-law of the deceased used to visit his house, deceased used to offer them food which was being accepted by them. Munni Bai (PW-3) sister of the deceased ond wife of Dhaneshwar (PW-2) has made almost similar statement as has been made by her husband. AAotilal (PW-4) and Fulwa (PW-6) maternal uncle and aunt of the deceased have also made ^ 'x. general allegotions against the accused/appellant. br. R.N. ^upta (PW-5) had performed the post mortem of the deceased has stated the cause of death due to han9in9. 10. Witnesses namely Shivnath Das (DW-1) and Jhandidas (DW-2) have stort-ed in their evidence that marriage of the accused/appellont was solemnized with the deceased ois per the custom oind the deceased had never made any complaint against the accused/appellant and she was p^rmitted to go to her parents' house as and when she wanted. 11. Evidence of the witnesses part-icularly that of mother, sister and brother-in-law of the deceased as discussed above does not spell even a single specific allegation on the bosis of which it can be said thot the accused/appellant had ever subjected the deceased to cruelty which had cujminated in compulsion to the deceased to commit suicide. Factual motrix if read in the iight of the evidence led by the prosecution including that of mother, sister and brother-in-law of the deceased does not bring the abetment defined under Section 107 IPC into play. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the accused/appellont had at any point of time harassed the deceased to meet any unlawful demand and therefore, the appellant cannot be said to havecommitted an offence under Section 498-A IPC also. Thus in the absence of any specific allegation against the accused/appellant that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty of such an unbearable extent which did not leave any other option before her but to commit suicide, this Court feels it difficujt to sustain the findin9s recorded by the Court below convicting oind sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above. v 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellont is hereby set aside. Appellant is report-ed to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^