—78 7SST •:2TPn^T, t$Tn^4l<o, {s)<?il-M^< *11<4dl %W^ WI, 200 3ff^r ^RT (^ii<^ '(T^T 3?n^r ^^i<^» ^ 3^?T'TSTcR ( 4^^<SS^ST) '^nw^f^T^^i^r HIGH COURT O^ CRIMINAt- APPEAL N0. 577/2004 APPELLAHTS IN JAIL RE8PONDEHT 2 Present: Mr. L.C. Das, cou: Mr. Neeraj Mehta; ct)i<il<n<lli 'WRlf ^felc3t <fa^i< ^^fRm^Fn^r CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8PUR Gautam Yadav^ 8/ o Chatru Yadav, aged 27 years, occupation labourer. V<fersu.s Chataru Yadav S/ o Alekh Rawat, aged about 52 years, occupation laboiirer. Kuxnari Bai Yadav^ W/o Chatru Yadav, aged 46 years, occiipation Labourer, A11 ressident of v?11^ge Raloiida, PoUce Station aiid Tchs^l Saraipali, Disteict Maliasainund (CG) The State of C.lihattisgai-h, tlirou.gli tlie District MagistraLe, MahasamuTirl (CG) tisel for the appeUaiits. Panel La^^rer for tlie State. JUDGMENT (2^nd November 2007) Dhiresidra. Mishra* J Tliis crmim.al apr(eal is dirccted against thc judgment of conviction arid order o|f scntence dated 11.5.2004 passed iti S.T.No. 387/2003 wl^lerebv leai'ned I Additional Sessions ^ ^TT^r ^RT Rt^ ^TSIT ^Ti^? ^Rl^ 75ST^TFn^T, ?S»Tf1'yll<S, {^<?il'y^< ^INdl ^?ra? -^ 200 3n^?r ^^ (yil^q^) '^TTW^R^T 3?n^r ~z- Judge, Mahasam-und t undCT Sections 304B undergo RI for 10 yeai's. 2. Casc of tlie pro Gaiitain was niaiTied wi yeai' tlii'ee montiis prio her m.atrimoiiial home a sustauied bv hd'. AUte thev treated the deceas dowrv. This fact was u Labo aiid Amriti when< used to pac^ her tliat be alriglit. A social xiiee matrmionial house at Gautam aiid ui the said about tiie iU-ti'eataient appeUaiits aiid ui tlie m tliat ia future tliiev circiim.stances, she w However, she died on iacident was given bv vide Ex.P/6 and on the Report of Ex.P/7 was Constable on 23.6.200 sh<4U chi<il<n<i1i ^w<^ ^fe^ <Pn^i< '^'^iRm^n^T as convicted each of the appeUaiits of the IPC aiid sentenced tliem to l^ecution, in bricf, is fhat appcllaiit |th Sureklia (suicc deceased) about one i^ to 10.6.2003 when Sureklia died in ji: about 11.00 a.m.. dzie to burn injuries sation agaiiist tiie appellaiits ai'e tliat jed with cruelty aiid harassed her for ^rrated l3y thc deceased to her pai'ents jvcr she visited ftieni. Howcvcr, Uiev ^ith fhe passage of tim.e everytliiag will (ing was convened ia this regai'd ui her K^langapali ui tlie presence of appeUaat m.eetiiig also the deceased coniplauied meted out to her for dowry by fhc jsethig appellaiit Gazitain had promised not harass tlie deccased. Iri these fesa sent to her m.atrmionial hom.e. 10.6.2003. Merg mtimatioii of the Ijier husbaiid Gautam, appeUant No. 1 p3asis of merg iaquuy First hiformation |lodged by S.L. Taiidon (PW-7), Head p. hiquest over flie dead body was ~^SS •^1^10<), ¥S>Ti1-M<|<S, fs|<»»l^^< TTOW ^»^l^» -^ 200 3?n^i ??if ^RN" WT3?7^[^?W J f^l. an^ST TCT^ (4^^<^) ^wi^R ^a 3?n^T -3-1 ahd wlbich prepared vlde Ex.P/5 for postm.ortem cxamin^ Dr. R.S. Patel (PW-16)| report of Ex.P/ 16, ui shock duc to extensive y sustaitied 100% burnl Paiichavat held ui possession -vide Eit.P;\ charge shect was filed i^i Class, Saraipali aiid tli^ by the learued Addition4l tliereafter, the dead body was sent ^tion to Govt. Ho^pital, SaraipaJi where conducted postmortem aiid gave liis he opuied that cause of deatli was (iirn, aiite mortem in nature as she had uijuries. The proceccUngs of tlie ^iJlage Kalaiigapali was takeii uito |9-C. After completiag irivcstigation tlie Court of Judicial Magistrate First sam.e was received 011 ti'aiisfer for trial Sessions Judge. Kit 3. Durmg ti-ial 16| prosecution. Thereafte^ ^were recorded in ^vhid agahist tfiem ia tlie pr' aad false miplication in tiial Coiirt after heai'il couvicted and seiitcncecl 4. Learned counsel perusal of the evidence evideiit that tlie deceasdd tiie appellaiits aiid b< Sxireldia Uved cordiall^ dcce^sed, has only <M<iI<n<i1i 'WRff ^fe^ <Rflt$i< ^r^ffipT^n^r witiiesses were examiiied by the ', statem.eats of the acciised pei'soiis they denied the evidence appeai'iiig |)secution case aiid pleadcd iruiocence the above offence. However, leai'ned j|ig counsel for fhe respective parties the appellaiit as mentioned above. [for the appeUaiit submits that from ^jf pai'eiits of tlie deceased it would be ne^er complaiiied about behaviiior of |fh appeUaat Gautam aiid deceased PW-11 Kusho Sand, unde of tiie |aUeged tlriat on enquirv_^3urekha, 3^^t5CTftFtN' wt3n^rg?qN? 'S^f -^N1 <''><<, y>Tf1'MII<o, f^01^^< /© NN^il' $bt((eh '^ 200 3TT^?T t[3RR ( ^l^^) '^nw^'cT ^iff^r -^- com.plained that her nj Even Chitraiijan Swai (] ci»n(<n<iii1CW^ ^fec2t <Rit$i< ^^tfhH^n^T [other-ui-law does not tatk ^rifh her. PW-12) who is Sarpauch of fhe village Baloda has stated that Ijhe deceased never made aiiy aUegation agaiiist her husbaiid or ^ii-laws. n> [, leai'ned counsel appeajing for fhe 'rted the impzigned judgmetit of the 5. On the other haAd, State/ respoudent supp< trial Couit. 6. I have heai'd leai'njed counsel for the parties aiid perused fhe material available on record including ttie ioipugned judgmeiit. 7. Convlction of flie of PW-5 Tai-a Bai, PW- appellaiits is based on the statements [0 Labo Saiid, father of the deceased, PW-9 Aniai'ti, raother o|f flie deceascd, PW-13 Samaru Saad, iincle oftiie deceased ai]|d PW- 14 Pi'ahlad Deep. 8. PW-5 TaraBai,w: neighbour of the deceas 10 is the resident of viUage Baloda and ed has deposed bcfore the Court tfiat appeUaiit Gaiitaai used|to'ibeat Szireklia for not bririing do^rry aiid for not cookiiig ti|ie food. This fact was uarrated by deceased Sureklia whefcever she visited her. She has also dcposed tliat a social regarding fll-treatment <j tiieetmg was convened ui tiie viUage ^ftlie accused persons aiid io. the said ineetiiig she had asked 1ple m.embers to persuadehcr hu^baiid, 3-SET ^l'ql^.q, ^Tfl'yjl<S, R^l'yy ^IN<rfl *NI<ih "^ 200 ^TT^T ^T't^Nr ^ITW^^I!^ h^- 3:iT^?r 1iT5ra? (^dl^i^i) '5^TOT ^rf^T 3?TI^T mother~ui4aw aiid fathd 10-15 days prior to her| shall be leavuis her persuaded her not to ^ exaaiitiation she has belonged to a poor fam| donc by Sureklia, wh^ parental home, Gautan^ uicorrect to sav tliat Sureldia aiid ui fact hd pareiital honie for loni complaiiied about ^r-m-law. She has furthCT stated that Idcatii, Sureldia had told her tliat she m|atrinionial hom.e. However, she had |o so. In pai'agraph ~ 5 of her cross- |admitted tliat the acczised pCTSons lUy aiid tlierefore, domestic work was ^never Surekha desu'ed to visit her took her to her hom.e. However. if is pautam. accepted all the requeste of did not aUow Surekha to Uve iri her aiid Gautam. or his parents never beforeher. Surekltia 9. PW-9 Amarti, mo1 Saiid, father of tlie exam.uiation-iii-cliief tli£ matrmioiiial home con: T.V., Fan, goat etc. wh< law also complauied However, on being qu adoiitted tiiat Surekha Gautam. and both of 1 admitted fliat at the tioi make any demaiid. PW- meetuig was coiT^ened cbi<i(<n<(ii 'HRoff ^fe^ <^i^$i< ^^iRm^n^r lier of tlie deceased aiid PW-10 Labo deceased, have dqjosed ui theu' t tfidur daugliter after return from her plahicd that hei' husbaiid demaiids Teas her mothCT-iii-law and fathCT-iri- Aiat tliese articles were not given. esfloned bv the defence, tiiey have iievcr complaiaed about behaviour of hem lived with harnionv. Thev have s of maiTiage also the appellaiit did not O Labo has fartlier stated that a social in tlie village Kalaiigapali as the ,^ ^T^r^i'f^ii^ TT^T 3H^T ^RN? 7^[ ^MI<?'»^,^Tfl^^Ko, (si^i-y^ ^ITOW <S»*<ilcb "^ 200 OT^jT X15RF ( llct^4?T) ^«ii^TC^a 37I^T -6-1 appeUaiits did not coiij laeetiiig appeUant Gaiit| that he shaU be takuig ^ le to take Surekha aiid hi tiie said ^Lm w^as also preseiit aiid he had stated ^ardkha with htm.. 10. PW-lSSamaru tiiat Szirekha told him t] food prepared by her, h^ that she has not bee^i g^ meetuig was conveiicd>] gone to her in4aws? hoi] admitted the suggcstic| deraaiid of do\vr\r tlie betiaviour ofthe appdlaj 11. PW-14 Prahlad I stated that a social Kalangapali ui which C village, father of the de< were present aiid cn em iii4aws tease her for n dowry. Howcver, she di bv her husbaiid aiid Ga his pai'ents demaiid wa1 uito ^/ritmg vlde Ex.P Ex.P/ 10, which bear hii tlie said aieetiag he cM<it<n<iti *<w<;il ^fe^ <Rn^i< ^ 3FiRlH 3TT^T S4iid., iincle ofthe deceased, has deposed b-at IICT raotlier-in-law does not Uke the |r iiiother-ui-law also zised to complaiti ^en watch, radio and cycle io. dowry. A llii his vitlage arid tiiereafter, she had ise. hi the cross-examhiation, he has |n of fhe defence that except about deceased made no complahit aboiit tits. ^eep, Secretary of Rawat Sainaj, has meethig was convened in vUlage rautam aiid two other persoiis of his :eased Surekha aad Surekliaii herself [uuy Sureldia had complained fhat her 'jt ^briagiiig watch, cycle, radio etc. iii d not complaiii regardiag aay demaiid Litani had aclmitted ui the mectiiig that Ai etc. The proceedings were reduced 9, Huidi transcript of the saaie is > signature. After about 10-15 days of [earnt about the death of Surekha. 3^T ^11^10^, tS>Tfi^^l<o, ts|01'y^< ^ 3?nii^[^ 1^j^> 'cCTSIi^T^IPi ,€ ^- ^(NdS ^hNlldb'' "^ 200 3n^?r x[5ra? (^cif^^) ^^TTW ^rf^T 3TI^T -1\ However. in. lus cross-< deceased never compl regarding deaiaad of don it is observed tiiat ttriere] KalaiigapaM on fhe-coj chi<il<n<iii .*iw<A ^f.fe^ <Pn<^i< ^^[Rm^n^r ^xaiauiation he has adniitted that the ^iiied to liim agaiast the appeUants |vry. 12. From close scrutibv offhe statements of abovewitnesses, is unrebutted evidence of the ^dtnesses that a nieeting was con^ened ia vUlage Baloda as also ui village iplaiiits of fhe deceased that she was harassed aiid ill-treate^in tlie nanie of demaiid of dfw/Ty by the appcUarit though parcn^s ofthe deccased after iiiitially alleguig iii tlieu' exaBiination-iiji-chief that the deceased com.plauied about cruelty by the jappellants for dowry, in tiieir cross- examm.atioii have depo^ ^dtiiess Tarabai of vUla^ |edjiist opposite. However, itidepeudent |e Baloda has deposed about cruclty for do^/rv bv Gautam anjd his m.0ther whereas zincle of flie deceascd Samarzi aiid| Pi'ahlad have deposed that on the complaint of the decea^ Kalaiigapali aad proceejimgs ofthe lacetiiig were reduced iiito writtag aud ui fhe said| tliat her fattier-ui-law aj she was not given watc| his parents of fhe abov^ thev shaU not m.ake aiml sed a meeting was convened iii village nieeting the deceased had coniplained pLdtDiother-ui4aw used to com.plahi that \i, cycle, radio etc. iii dowry and ia that laeetuigappeUant Gaut^xa had admitted regardiiig deniaads of ? articles aad proraised tliat hencefortih. dem.and. ^O^Y ?RT (qil^ ^T%^Nr ^. ^ L- 3:5^T •^N10^, ^Tfl'MII<S, fst^l'y^ ^ WHW ^n^ ^ 200 3TI^?T ^RR? ( <jC([yg^) '^TTW^rf^T 3?H^T -9-1 13. It is not ui disputej was solemruzed oiilv ont aiid she died uiiiiatziraB sustaiaed by her whlle home. There is evideiicel hai'assmen.t for dowry b^ been able to rebut flie under Section 113B (l? \1 ctrcum.staiices, convictil 304B ofthe IPC recorde^ 14. At tliis stage leai'4 tliat tlie appeUmits who to thc same family ha( iindergo RI for 10 yeai's,| the deceased ui tlidr crd upon tlie appcUaiits is t| toe suitably reduced. 15. Considerhig the al{ the appeUaiits aiid fiirth{ raade bv the witoriessesl special reasou for awajrdbi! prescribed under Sectiorl <=M<i(<n<fl"i *iM<?ff ^fe^ <r3it$i< ^^iRpT^n^r tliat mai'riage of Gautam aiid Surekha ? veai' ttoee months before her death deafli because of the burn uimries she was residiiig hi her mati'miouial tliat she was subiected to crueltv aiid the appeUaiits. The defence has not 3resumption of dowry death avaUable rf the Evidence Act and ia fliese )n of tlie appeUaiits under Section by tlie tiial Court is just aiid propCT. ed counsel for the appeUaiits stibniits are fathei% mother aiid son aiid belong yre beeii convicted aiid seatenced to lookiag to tlie statements of pareiits of 'ss-examuiation. iail seiitence mii^osed ?o exccssive aiid tiie same desei-ves to »o\i€submission of leai'ued counsel for si' considcruig the nature of allegations agaiiist the appeUaiits, there is no rdiag niore thaii rainimum. sentence 304B oftheIPC. 3^^ r<<l<11<?'>'i|, t$T{i'M41<o, fst^Kiy ^ ^W^ tb^Jcb ^ 200 3^?T X|^? (4c|f^c<<^T) w^r^r R;rticb TOT^TT^r $b^[ch 4 ,^- ^ ]< ^^TW^Tfe?r 3?i^r 16. Iii tlie reszilt, the app< mauitaiiihig conviction of tiie ai tlie IPC, jail senteiice of 10 yeaijs is mocli&ed mid tlie appeUaiite RI for 7 vears each. tal is partiy aUowed. Wliile ?peUante under Section 304B of .? RI unposed bv tlie trial Coiirt 4re hcreby senteiiced to undergo CM^<fll 'HFT^ff ^* ft^rt <p»l^|< '^'^TRR^T^T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^rre^ ^N^ gw^T, ii^^i^iici — FS/59—8/2007 —30,000.