i/ ^ \~ 'CFb'000058807 ^ ^^ wWt Ig_SHS_HI«H.._CQ3RT_.Ol_MA^Z^m.AfiESIL..4T_JABALiiR &^-g» Crlffilnal Appeal N©,. .^. ^/.. ./9S ^^ ^all j^- ^/ <^ ^p'pellantss fl).Ba2,i s©n@? ?uiii Bawat/» aged 35. years.^ ^ c\ $ 6fP ^v^^t-.-—"& cs) . '^wai .s^-^f Jla»da-Saw@€'^-^ed -©©-^rs .^ i®<^^ „ U-^eT-^/.^'.' ^ . /. \0UKcu^j^ \\^- u^ ' ^ (r^&- . ^ . . '^ ^ ^^-"'t"- • ^ ^3^ B^Eal gjL-®w/©Puni Ravat-y aged 55yyrs$ y>^A^ .c^' ltr^ ' •UC'^^""' '^^ /.. ^ f7). ^ < ^-^ ?.^ , ^j ^ j (y: S ^^ ^ _^£^^ ^^ y B'(4) Jali^sf® Pual BaTa^y aged ab®ut 1"9 All residents ©f village Kunda<» Poliee Stati©n Kunda, yrs; District Bll&spur, / Vs» '&^ppndentt^ Stat@ @f ¥.»f»/ £ri®inal ARpeal Uader Section 374(2) @f Cp.P.C, BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 13:04:27 +0530 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 1993 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Bali S/o Puni Rawat and others State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Neeraj Mehta, counsel for the appellants. . Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (03.05.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 342/1991 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and five years respectively on each count. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of the deceased namely Shail Bai was solemnized with accused/appellant Bali about 5-6 years prior to the date of incident. Further case ofthe prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide on 29.3.1991 by setting herself ablaze in hermatrimonial home. However, she died on 30.3.1991. On the basis of merg intimation Ex. P-8 given on 30.3.1991 itself, FIR Ex. P/8-A was registered against the accused/appellants under sections 498-A and 306/34 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, Dr. P.L. Kurre (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.2 Puni hasexpiredand therefore appeal against hirn has already abated vide order dated 5.7.2007. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above. 5. hleard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that so far as appellant No.1 Bali is concerned, he has already undergone the entire sentence imposed on him by the Court below.As regards his conviction,counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal. Thus the present appeal so far as itrelates to appellant Bali is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Counsel for the appellants further submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellants 3 and 4. As regards conviction under Section 498-A IPC, counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments td the sentence part of the same only. 8. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports thejudgment impugned. 9. Undisputedly, the deceased committed suicide on 29.3.1991 by setting herself ablaze in her matrimonial home. Her dying declaration Ex. D-4 was recorded by Dr. P.L. Kurre (DW-1) in which she has stated that while she was boiling water for taking medicines, she felt giddiness and fell in the earthen oven and had sustained burn injuries. She has categorically stated that nobody is responsible for the same. So far as the prosecution witnesses are concerned, Ram Swarup (PW-1) - the brother of the deceased has made general allegations against the accused/appellants No. 3 and 4. He has stated that his sister (the deceased) used to tell him that her S^^^^^^^!,^^^*^^^^.^^^^,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law used to beat her on the pretext that she was not doing the household work. Almost sjmilar allegation has been made by the father of the deceased namely Tijau Ram (PW-7). 10. If the entire evidence collected by the prosecution is seen in itsentirety, the allegations made against the appellants would not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC as the basic ingredients of abetment provided under Section 107 IPC are absent in the case in toto. For ready reference Section 107 IPC is reproduced as under: Section 107. A person abets the doing of a 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 ofthatthing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by 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 of that thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, eitherphorto 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." The statements of the witnesses thus do not go to show that any of the accused/appellants had ever instigated or abetted the deceased in any manner whatsoever which could have driven her for commission of suicide. This being the situation, it appears to be difficult for this Court to uphold the conviction of appellants 3 and 4 under Section 306 IPC. It isaccordingly set aside. 11. However, the conviction of appellants 3 and 4 u/s 498-A IPC is maintained. 12. As regards sentence, the appellants have already remained in jail for about seven months and therefore, this Court is of the opinion -LI- (^ appellants 3 and 4 is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. 13. With the aforesaid discussions and observations, appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge