XI-HC-22 311^51'?;! R-(i+ 3T1^I **)i+ ^lf^l ~FSI -^MW^, SSTilwiS. fa<fll'M'i< s'n^T ira^? *<t*fPtTW*l|th "^T. 200 ^t^SI' CRIMINAL APfEAL N0. 794 of 2005 AppeUants l^ ..<2. VEftSUS Respondent Present: Shri Goutram Khe1|rapal Advocates for the appellant; Shri Arun Sao, GA foi) Dhirendra Mishra, J This criminal appeal Criminal Procedure is di conviction and order of se «lil<l[i'l'>fl-) IWcil''? 1^St <l«1t(l< ^aifStnaii^i Dujram, S/6 Shri Ramu Ram Danuhar, Aged about 20years, Rainu Ram S/o Daura Ram Danuhar, Aged about 50 years, Sukrit Kynwar, W/o Ramu Ram, Aged about 42 years. Stajte ofChhattisgarh, Th^ough Thana - Pali, Korba, Dist. Koi|ba (C.G.) •apal wi.th Shri Suresh Verma, the State. : ORAd. JUDGMENT (14as^ptember 2007) (inder Section 374(2) of the Code of jrected against the judgment of ('itence dated 28.9.2005 passed in 1 XI-HC-22 an^r^T h-H'h 3D^?( sti*^i<* ^ifiti -rg •<ii'l<i<Yi'4, yTfly'iii. P«'iwa< 3TT^?T '^f^K 11HCTIWt<l<* "^ 200 ^^fl' SII^I^FRIIW ^lfel Idamed S.T.No. 62/04 whereby Korba, has convicted the a^pellants of IPC and sentenced each pay a fine of Rs.500/- apd default of payment of'En^ months. All the sentendf concun-ently. Additional Sessions Judge, under Sections 498A,304B ^if thein to undergo R.I. for 3 years, IR.I. for 7 years, respectively and in to undergo additional R.I. for 3 ;s have been directed to run iesti the wais 2;. Briefly stated case o| Kulmatbai was married t4 month of March, 2003, whfc) her rnatrimonial house andl marriage accused Durgesfi persons had quarreled on the coinplainant party village Lafa in connection w[ of the dispute that was relation to dowry. It is deceased was harassed by| demand of dowry and when| after bne month of the parents that her mother-iji treated her with cruelty Inquest of Ex.P/3 was pf furtHer 4)l-4Td4i':1 HWV\\ ^ \k^ iFat-tri.K ^aipgjran^i the prosecution is that deceased appellant No. 1 Dujram in the consumed poisonon 9.3.2004 at died in the hospital. At the dme of Umendra and other accused pretext of inadequate dowry and threatened when they went to |th Chouthiya ceremony on account ijaised at the time of marriage in case of the prosecution that the accused persons in the name of |she retumed to her parental house 4'riage, then also she informed her i-law, father-in-law and husband for dowry. During investigation 'rformed over the dead body of mafna in i'r"! !l-T XI-HC-22 an^iwi h-u* sf^s Si+ff^i •afea -T53 •SWvPI. dTil'yiti. r'«11'M1< sn^i xRrg? © *(rT<?tl Sh*<l<*> "S^ 200 ^S^VI' Kulmatbai. A team of Dr.l S.S. Paikra (PW-15) condu<[: deceased and gave their queries of the police vide j Report of Ex.P/20 was regi'4 Officer, P.S. Pali on the basj the deceased Smt. Tulkun^t charge^ sheet was filed in th|' Class, Katghora. 3. Durihg trial the prose} accused persons .in their 313 of the Cr.P.C. pleade(d witnesses are lying and thej trial Court after hearing convicted and sentenced paragraph one of this judgjr and Umendra Singh were acjq 4. Learned counsel for prosecution has utterly f£|iled deceased Kulmatbai as d categorically stated that th regarding cause of death 4Wl<'l'il-1 IWsS 4 ^S <fal<{l< i73tf:tna:ii^i Pradeep Agrawal (PW-14) and Dr. ted postrnortem over the person of report of Ex.P/17 and replied to c.R/18 & 19. The First Information tered on 9.4.2004 by Station House .s of information given by mother of rai. After corupleting investigation Court of Judicial Magistrate First ;ution examined 18 witnesses. The tatements recorded under Section innoGence and stated that fhe never demanded dowiy. Learned iounsel for the respective parties fhe appellants as mentioned in However, accused Durgesh ^uitted ofthe above charges. judgjnent the appellants submits that the to prove cause of death of |octors performing autopsy have ;y are not in a position to opine aijid opinion can be given only after &• E I Trr^'?' XI-HC-22 sn^i^iT ^•ti* 3ii^r sbKleb Tllttl -T53 •^SPVv^. '^Wl<i. l*«-ll*f1< 3TRp?T IR^; *<1*<CTI WflK* "tPI. 200 ^^Vl' aii^l ^iTW^ifer <. viscera reporf is obtainej report of the viscera has n<|>t such, it cannot be sai{ unnatural death which isl the accused persons und( fyrther argued that convictj statements of PW-4 Smt. PW-6 Fagnu Singh and PW[ dnly general and omnibu) dowry have been made by specific allegation against] subjected the deceased Referring to paragraph 10 (PW-5), mother of the dec^ between the deceased and is evident from the fact that her parental home after h( accompanied by her husb^nd assisted them in their thrasl that appellant No. 1 Du separate residence whereai separately in other house, statement of PW-4 Manglu +i<<I<rt<fl'i ii^cif ^ isvt <(«i«si< ^? 3lf<fEI3n^[ However, chemical examination >t been produced during trial and as that deceased Kulmatbai died fcondition precedent for convicting er Section 304B of the IPC. He [on of the appellants is based on the ^areliyabai, PW-5 Smt. Tulkunwar, -7 Vishram Singh. It is argued that allegations regarding demand of the above witnesses and there is no the accused/appellants that they |o cruelty for demand of dowry. bf the statement of Snit. Tulkunwar |ased, it is stated that relationship ^ccused persons was cordial, which the deceased visited 10-12 times to ;r marriage and at times she was i.e. appellant No. 1 who also |iing operation. It is also contended |ram and deeeased resided in a appellants No. 28s 3 were residing (rhich is further corroborated by the IRam. ~ -.:. ^w XI-HC-22 sn^i'sii ft-tiat) SfI^T sb^jcb ^lfta •ysi -i|i<iid'i<. sSTil'M'l'i. facii'My 31TC(?T 'vf^SK wxen tD*iitt> "WI. 200 ^TS^S!' 5. It is further argued tp ••» the deceased, has made dj. Dujram only regarding t^. denied that appellants No. for dowry. The diary stat6j recorded after two raonths-df 6; On the -^other; h^ State/respondent supporte| Gourt and submitted thatl poison; in her matrimonial marriage and in the post have been found on both fact that she was tortured Kareliyabai, PW-5 Smt. PW-7 Vishram Singh have, tortured by her husband ag of demand af dowry and th been convicted by the trial C 7, I haye heard leamed gone though the evidence impugned judgment. <<tl^fcl''fl'l imfif'? fSVl <[»1t(l< ^sipgiran^i tiat PW-7Vishram Singh, father of llegations against appellant No. 1 arassment and has categorically 2 8s 3 used to harass the deceased Aents of the witnesses have been 'the incident on 3.5.2004. tnd, leamed counsel for the (i impugned judgment of the trial the deceased died by consuming [house only within one year of her |mortem report numerous injunes Ijier legs, which is indicative of the [just before her death. PW-4 Smt. T^jlkunwar, PW-6 Fagnu Singh and categorically stated that she was also other ^appellants in the name ^refore, the appellants have rightly tourt. . counsel for the parties and have available on record as also the t 's ^Br •V- XI-HC-22 sii^i ?n K-ii'* 3V^I *t|i4 tlfOT T°g 't-lMlvif. ^•y'i<s. fa'ni'My sv^ inra; wt|cfr'ih*iich "a^I. 200 fe^g' 3ii^i1^aiw(rt??r OLlt 8. PW-14 Dr. Pradeep over the person of the E^x.P/17. In paragraph, 4 Ofj has stated that there wefe ,,(, firigers, fdrth wascoming body was cyanosed, fihge| meinbrahe of fhe brain was cbngestea, heart was emptyj the stomach, intestines we| congested. Viscera was cheinical examination. In doctors have stated that fro< and nostrils, the cause o< phosphorous poisoning, inji^ caused due to rubbing as sl congestion of the organs may be due to poisoning. that since husband of the d( case history of poisoning, death of the deceased is pQison. A^rawal deiteased re{)ly 9. It is true that medit available on record. Howevdr <+l<<Id41'l •^M'^ff'^ Fs^ •(T^T^R, ^?3iptn3ii^?i has conducted postmortem and has given a report of his deposition before the Court he a|brasions over right leg, left leg and frora her mouth and nostrils, the -s' nails were bluish in colour, :ongested, ta-achea and larynx were there was discolored white fluid in -e swollen and spleen, liver were Ffreserved and it was referred for to the queries of the police, the |h was coming out from the mouth death may be due to oregano present over her legs could be l|ie was brought on motorcycle and in the postmorteni report reply to query, he further stated |ceased himself brought her with a tl^erefore, in the postmortem report njientioned due to consumption of injiyies ddscribed Ih al report of the viscera is not •, from perusal of the postmortem %:^: (T?)-^; '• XI-HC-22 SD^T^iT fiFiwsn^i ^•R[ yl?a 'S^ ^WvPf. wSfWS. hw-wy. 3TRt?T IR^ HIHCTI »^i»"' '^ 200 •^^•-•--••--•--••-- sn^l^^^llWdfi^ 7 report it isevident.that within one yeai- of her marr the svfts idi H<)ly 10. PW-5 Smt. Tulkun^ar stated that the deceased<; 2003 in the month of FaguifL that after some days of Lafa. At that time her dai-fel there on Monday and therif to her.elder daughter, whe| Kulmatbai has fainted and However, the house ofher about her daughter but thej? She has further stated acGused Uraendra Singh Her daughter came to her time she was complaining of demand of dowry for days and thereafter, promised that he shall Thereupon, they sent hearing that her daughter her house and ultimately, dead body in mortuary. In| cyc<e Duji|am n4t thelr i*llf<'l'!il-< 'WRlf'? fe^t <fat(l< ^?3ifi<ra SIT^I deceased died unnatural death age. : ', mother of the deceased, has married with Dujrain in the year i.e. March. She has further stated festival she had gone to village -fehter was erecting wall, she stayed :after, returned to village Baisemar •e she was informed that deceased jfallen whereupon she went to Lafa. ipaughter was locked. She enquired did not give any satisfactory reply. at the time of niarriage also quarreled for inadequate dowiy. |iouse in Jutiya fesdval and at that |hat she was harassed in the name and watch. She stayed for 10-12 came to take her back and commit thismistake in future. daughter with Dujram. After Ijias fainted and fallen, they went to ^ent to Pali Hospital and found her Iparagraph 9 she has stated that on tliat hfes »!- lTft5! ll:.i ii XI-HC.22 SIT^T^T M* Sf^s ^*lN> ^f^fl -ra -i<i<ii<rf'i|, is^ly'iii. f««''i'"'i< 3H^9T 'tR^? t|l*le)t l*t|i*"""""" """ •H'l. 200 'fN^g"""""""""""""""""" sii^i^Tsnw'afOT % the eve of Jutiya-festival daughter, he had promis mistake ih future. df infornled 1,1. PW-7 VishramSihghl also reiterafed the alleg'atio) in the name of demand persons and stated that his| cycle and watch. Howeverj daughter was tortured andj he alone beat her, as inforrr) he has furtherstated that and stayed there for 8-10 take her and when he daughter with him, then with Dujram gave assuran| the past has happened, Kulmatbai in ahymanner, his daughtei- with Dujram this witness has categorical] her mother-in-law and deceased for dowry. He of Ex.D/2 and in fact the| Similar is the statement ofl nevgr <tiRi<rl-ift;:I TTP:T?ff "^ Is^ <^r^l< ^; siPaHaii^r When Dujram eame to take her d that he shall not commit the is father of the deceased. He has )•! of quarrel at the time of marriage dowry by the acquitted accysed daughter was tortured for dowiy of he has specifically stated that her harassed only by Dujram because by his daughter. In paragraph 7 1'iis daughter retumed to his house |days. Thereafter, Dujram came to retused that he would not send his elderly persons who had come ;e that whatever has happened in heticeforth Dujram would not harass (herefore, on this assurance he sent |after Dashhara. In paragraph 13 }y stated that it is wrong to say that fither-in-law used to harass the deposed so in his diary statement boy has murdered his daughter. Khem Singh (PW-8) who has also t(VO s» 1-fre XI-HC-22 sn^i^i R-ii* sntn ^TTW ~sv '=qrai?ra. dTilti'i'i. l««'iiyi< 311^?T 'IRT^ *<ltidl *^i*" ^H. 200 1q^8T"""'"" 311^1 ?^IIW 'Hf??t 9 refused to send her as hl '*ll[cl<il-i 'TORTf 4 f5^6 tFi1t(K i? aipm aroRt stated fhat when Dujsain ca^ne to take the deceased, her father used to harass and beat her, whereupon Dujram promisep before him that he shall not beat her and then only he s6:n|t his daughter with Dujram and ,.;.' ], , -' . , . : thereafter, she did not returiti and was murdered there. 12. From perusal of the ^ established Ihat death of occurred within one year of at her matrimonial house fatements of above witnesses it is Kulmatbai was unnatural which her raarriage by consuming poison There is evidence against her husband that he ysed to todture and harass her on account of 1 demand ofdowry. 13. Thus, on the basis of| evident that the deceased harassment in connection husband appellant No. 1 of Evidence Act, this Court| appellant No. 1 Dujram w{ death 6f Kulinatbai. Accd appellant No. 1 Dujram b4 dismissed and is hereby disrjiissed 14. However, taking int|3 statement of father of the evidence available on record it is was subjected to cruelty and with .deniand of dowry by her D^jram and in view of Section 113B is of the considered opinion that ^s responsible for causing dowry [rdingly, the appeal preferred by |ing without force is liable to be corisideradon the categorical leceased that her daughter never •I? .»a. XI-HC-22 sn^i^ K;-<i+ 3H^( *tii+ ^ifiti ^F •S"g -tll'tlll'f*), dTiltitS. T»«11'M3< 31T^?T IR^? •llHCTlsniiqi""""'"' """ ^HT. 200 Iq^T"""""" 3n^?i'?^iiw flfsif /(. coinplained that she was No. 2 85 3 i.e. Ramu Raml with deniand of dowry, thi^ that the Court below wds '1.1 appellants under SectionS. 15. In the result, the aplj .3 i.e. Ramu -Ram and 9 conyiction under Sectionsl senterice passed thereon, ^ the above charges and be s| in any other case. +Wlct<i1'< *<IHcil''? feT2t <pi]t(K ^3ifi<n aii^i tiarassed or tortured by appellants and Sukrit Kunwar in connecdon . Court is of the considered opinion not justified in convlcting the gSAand 304B Ofthe IPC. leal preferred by appellants No. 2 & iukrit Kunwar is allowed. Their 498A and 304B of the IPC and re set aside. They are acquitted of ^t at liberty forthwith if not required sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge :.@- ::p^t