, » 1 iyle 3a , I ICnrm‘g/j I i 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA IURE AT JABALPUR Cr.Appea1 No, \13 , (Memorandum of Appeal Un&er Sectlon 374 of CruPa'Cu x) Of 1999 a... .v_.‘ J» I/////////II/I///////;I;Is//;/I/II I ’ > > I @ MEMORANDUM OF APPV'AL UNDER SECTIO’V 374 OF Cru P¢C¢ APPELLANT J IL s Giri¢hn s/o Udai Smgh Methil ‘ aged 22 years, r/o Kakrail; thana somni, District Rajnandgaon (MP) § -- r ‘ Versus “I.” i7; ‘ RESPONDENT : state of Madhya Prgdeahl, ‘ gs‘m&~$¢v w-W-ug. MwuJ a“... 1:- . "an...“ AM Thr'ouwh s.H.O.‘ Pollce Stauon I 50mm. dlstrict Rajnanggaon (MPh _ M93 é? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1999. APPELLANT Girish son of Udai Singh Methil. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Azad Siddiqui counsel for appellant Shri Pravin Das, Dy.GA for respondent/ététe. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (29.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31 .12.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 128/1997 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of merg intimation (Ex. P-4) given on 10.4.1997, investigation was done and FIR (Ex. P-6) was registered against the accused/appellant and > other accused persons, on 17.4.1997. It is alleged that wife of the. appellant namely Santoshi committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. lt is alleged that the appellant and other accused persons used to harass the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. The deceased and her elder sister were married in the same family and their husbands happen to be real brothers. ~x I 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has fir examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the 3 accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled 69 _2_, against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. However, by the same judgment accused Ramchand, Smt. Fakirin Bai and Parvati Bai have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that when on the basis of same evidence, the other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them; the accused/appellant should also have been awarded acquittal. According to him, as the prosecution has not collected any material to show any overt act attributed to the accused/appellant that he ever subjected the deceased to harassment, his conviction under Section 304-B IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment. 8. Johan (PW—1) who happens to be the grand father of the _ deceased in relation has merely stated in his evidence that when he used to visit the house of the deceased, she used to tell him that she was being harassed by the appellant and other accused persons for demand of dowry. However, no specific allegation has been made by this witness against any of the accused persons as to the manner in which the deceased was meted out harassment. ln his cross examination, this witness has stated that just before few days of the u incident, the accused/appellant had taken the deceased along with 'his daughter to his house in connection with some Puja ceremony. He has further stated that at the time of inquest he was present l there but no allegation has been‘made by him against any of the L accused persons. This witness has admitted that no Panchayat “ni ~3_ meeting was ever convened in connection with the complaint made by the deceased. This apart, there are several contradictions in the statement of this witness with respect to the merg statement. Ashok Kumar (PW-2) — the brother of the deceased has also made general and omnibus allegations against all the family members of the accused/appeiiant saying that the deceased used to inform him that she was harassed by the accused persons for bringing less dowry. He has admitted that the deceased used to visit her parents’ house very frequently and used to narrate the ill treatment at the hands of the accused persons. In the cross examination this witness has admitted that no Panchayat meeting was convened or any report was lodged regarding the ill treatment of the deceased by the accused persons. This witness has however net given any specification of the demand of dowry allegedly made by the accused persons. He has admitted that when the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial house, no report whatsoever was lodged. He has admitted that at the time of marriage of the deceased, no dowry whatsoever was settled by the accused persons. Ansuiyabai (PW-3) the mother of the deceased has also made general and omnibus allegations against the~accused persons. She has also not given any description of the alleged demand made by the accused persons. ln her cross examination, this witness has admitted that the incident narrated by her had taken place one year before the Gavna ceremony of the deceased was performed. She has also admitted " that no dowry was settled at the time of marriage of the deceased. Sunita Bal (PW-4) the sister in law of the deceased has stated in her evidence that the deceased used to tell her that the accused/appellant used to demand money for his business purpose and was not providing her food. She has also stated that once the deceased had informed her that the accused/appellant was having > extra marital relation with someone. She has stated that 8 days before the incident, the accused/appellant had taken the deceased with him. Amrita Bai (PW-6) has also made general allegations against the accused persons saying that the deceased had informed her that she was not being given food and was otherwise harassed — ~~ q_ by the accused persons for bringing less dowry. Mohan Singh (PW-9) the brother of the accused/appellant and brother in law of the deceased has stated that no demand whatsoever was made by the accused/appeiiants and the deceased was living hapbily with her husband. 9. Having scrutinized the entire materiai available on record this Court could not lay hand on a cogent and clinching piece of evidence which could prompt the judicial conscience to arrive at the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide as a result of her subjection to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by leading evidence in this regard. Term “soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and .‘that brings in the importance of a proximity test between the harassment alleged and the death. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. lf the alleged. 7’ incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it Would be of no consequence. 10. ln the case in hand, nothing substantial has been brought on record by the prosecution to the effect that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused/appellant for dowry in close proximity with the death of the deceased which could have disturbed her mental equilibrium to the extent that she was forced to commit suicide. in this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the \" x I f§. accused/appellant as mentioned above suffers from grave illegality and irregularity and thus liable to be set aside. 11. in the result, the appeal is allowed. impugned judgment is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He be setfree if not wanted in any other case. 'l ii ii i i ii i g Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ’ i