% ^\^ x ^.^^g1'i;^;::;-'^^^^";,;^^^'. .% ^'V^'t. ^-^•^-^.•~.'V CF0000060938 IN TI-iB HIGH COURT OF JIJDCATURE AT • JABALPUR Crtoinal Appeal No»l°_^^__0f 1996 APPELL^T ^^^^^ 1 Suresh Kujriax agerl alx>ut 26 years^ son of Ghashiya<Ram Mehar^residc^t of G.ram IDokla^Police Station Gunir district Durg (MP) Versus /" t State of Madhya PrQdeah^ tlirough the Police Station Gunir^ district Durg (MP)^' CR3I.mNfAL APPFAL UI^DER S"i3CTION 374 $2} OP Cr»P»Cs SESPOND®.TT 'A.^k._ ^- '• V II , ^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Crimjnal Appeal No. 1049 of 1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Suresh Kumar State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Vishnu Koshta counsel for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINALAPPEALUNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (04.03.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.6.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 590/1993 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of the deceased namely Subhotin Bai was solemnized with the accused/appellant about 6 years prior to the date of incident. On 16.9.1992 the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Merg intimation (Ex. P-1)was given by Yudhisthir (PW-1) - the village Kotwar on 17.9.1992. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police on 16.11.1992 against the accused/appellant herein, his father Ghasiya Ram, mother Ram Bai and one villager namely Roop Singh for the offences under Sections 304-B and 306/34 IPC. Trial Court has however framed the charges against the accused/appellant, his father and mother under Section 304-B whereas against accused Roop Singh under Section 306 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section313ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in Which they denied the charges levelled ,,,',;'^^^^ '. "27% ^ "%£...^ against them and pleaded their innocence and false implicationin the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted accused Ghsiya Ram, Ram Baj and Roop Singh of the charged levelled against them. It also acquitted the accused/appellant herein of the charge under section 304-B but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant because the deceased committed suicide as the accused namely Roop Singh had tried to catch hold of her hand for which a Panchayat meeting was also called in which the deceased was held responsible and therefore, on account of feeling guilty she committed suicide. He submits that Birjha Bai (PW-5) mother of the deceased and Janak Lal (PW-6) father of the deceased have implicated the accused/appellant in a false case just to ensure his convietion. He submits that though Janak Lal (PW-6) - the father of the deceased was present at the time of inquest, he has not made any allegation against the accused/appellant. He submits that even if the entire evidence is taken as it is, no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against him as the ingredients of abetment defined under Section 107 IPC are completely missing. He also submits that prior to the incident also on two occasions the deceased had made an attempt to commit suicide which is clear from the evidence of Baba Lal (PW-3). 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondenVState supports the judgment. 8. Yudhisthir (PW-1) - the village Kotwar has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he received an information from one Rajendra Kumar that the deceased had consumed poison and when he went to the house of the accused/appellant he was not there and the deceased was lying in a serious condition. Thereafter, y"'",.^ •.^-'" the efforts were made to shift the deceased to the hospital and during that period she died. Thereafter, he gave intimation to the police vide Ex. P-1. He has further stated that the day on which the deceased had consumed poison, in the same morning the accused/appellant informed him that one Roop Singh had caught hold of the hands of the deceased with bad jntention and upon getting this information he arranged the Panchayat meeting which was attended by the appellant, the deceased and said Roop Singh and the compromise between them was arrived at. Basant Ram (PW-2) - the villager is awitness of inquest Ex. P-3, notice Ex. P-2 and seizure of the articles made under Ex. P-4, Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6. Baba Lal (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused persons and the deceased as well. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused/appellant in the year 1989 but the deceased was interested to have close relations with her parents. According to this witness, the deceased was stubborn and there was some dispute between her and the accused/appellant. He has stated that prior to the death of the deceased twice she made an attempt to commit suicide for which her mother and fatherwere also called in the village and in their presence the deceased was made to understand. He is also the witness to notice Ex. P-2 and inquest Ex. P-3. Asthir Ram (PW-4) - another villager has stated that a day prior to the death of the deceased while he was working in the field, at about 4 p.m. the deceased came to him and informed that Roop Singh had caught hold of her hand and then he also saw said Roop Singh sitting in his field which was aboutSO yards away there from. He has stated that on the next day, a Panchayat meeting was called which was attended by him also where the entire incident was narrated by him, deceased was also questioned and she had disclosed in the Panchayat meeting that Roop Singh had caught hold of her hand. He has stated that in the said meeting deceased was held responsible and scolded in the Panchayat. According to this witness, Roop Singh was also scolded in the Panchayat meeting and then a compromise between them was arrjved at. Birjha Bai (PW-5) - the mother of the deceased has stated that marriage of her daughter -c/. (deceased herein) was solemnized with the accused/appellant 7 years prior thereto and after her marriage whenever the deceased met her she used to inform her that her mother-in-law and father-in- law used to harass her for bringjng less dowry and ask to leave their house. According to this witness, 15 days or one month prior to the date of incident the deceased had visited her house and informed that she was beaten by the accused/appellant, his mother and father. In cross examination, she has admitted that father and mother of the accused/appellant are residing in Dalli and she had never arranged any meeting in the village raising the point of harassment meted out to her daughter by the accused persons nor had she informed her relatives about the same. She has stated that a day prior to the date of incident, the accused/appellant had come to her house and informed her that the deceased had made several allegati6ns against one villager for which a Panchayat meeting was also called in which she was scolded. Janak Lal (PW-6) - the father of the deceased has also made almost similar allegation as has been made by his wife Birjha Bai (PW-5). He has stated that even a village meeting was called and when the deceased had apologized before its members, father of the accused/appellant had agreed to keep her. He has admitted the fact that no village meeting was called in respect of allegation for demand of dowry. Sudharam (PW- 7) is the head constable who had recorded merg intimation Ex. P-1. S.P. Mishra (PW-8) is the witness who had performed post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. Shyam Das (PW-9) is the investigating officer who has supported the case ofthe prosecution. 9. Minute examination of the evidence available on record makes it clear that there was some dispute between the deceased and the accused/appellant and there is nothing on record to show that the deceased has committed suicide only because of that. On the contrary, the evidence reflects that a day prior to the date of incident the deceased was subjected to harassment by the acquitted accused Roop Singh who had caught hold of the hand of the deceased for which village meting was called in which the deceased was held guilty. In view of this, possibility of the deceased suffering from guilty conscious cannot be ruled out and that may be the ..^ —&>~— •^ reason for her to commit suicide. This apart, Baba Lal (PW-3) has categorically stated that previously also on two occasions the deceased had made an attempt to commit suicide and therefore it may be a case where the deceased was having a suicidal tendency. Evidence of Birjha Bai (PW-5) and Janak Lal (PW-6) making allegation of harassment against the accused persons seems to be an exaggerated version on their part because they have also made the allegation against mother and father of the accused/appellant who were residing at a different place known as Dalli. Even if the entire evidence available on record is taken as a whole, ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC are not attracted to the case in hand. To have a ready reference, section 107 IPC is quoted below: "Section 107. A person abets the doing ofa thing, who - First. - Instigates anyperson to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing ofthat thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, orby willful concealment ofa material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to orat the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 10. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and that being so the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Accused/appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge .^