HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1037/1996 (1) Radhelal, aged about 22 years son of Pancham Kurmi, Resident of Narayan Tola Dhanwahi, P.S. Kindrai, Tahsil Lakhnadon, Distt. Seoni (2) Seetaram, aged about 26 years son of Phalli Gumasta, Resident of Beohari, P.S. Kindrai, Tahsil Lakhnadon Distt. Seoni …Appellants vs. State of M.P., through SHO, P.S. Kindrai, Tahsil, Lakhnadon, Distt. Seoni …Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.M. Trivedi, Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjay Patel & Sushil Mishra, Advocates for the appellants. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, P.L. for the respondent-State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T (17.11.11) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 26.04.1996 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T.No.59/92, whereby each one of the appellants, though charged with the offences punishable under Section 306 and in the alternative 498A of the IPC, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 6 months. 2. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus - (i) Savitri Bai (since deceased), a resident of village Padhera, was the daughter of Gorelal (PW1). Her marriage was solemnized with appellant no.1 Radhelal (hereinafter referred to as ‘A1’) nearly four years prior to her untimely death. In the wedlock, they were blessed with a son. (ii) At the relevant point of time, A1 was residing separately from his parents as, being a gambler, he had been thrown out of the parental house. Savitri had a happy married life for a period of about 3 years. Thereafter, she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by A1 but also by his relative appellant no.2 Seetaram (for short ‘A2’) for her failure to bring an amount of Rs.5,000/- from her father. In such a situation, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. However, in the wake of assurance given by Sevaram (DW1), the brother-in-law of A1, that the ill-treatment would not continue any further, Savitri was sent to A1’s house only one-and-half months prior to the incident in question. (iii) Ultimately, in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of May 1992, Savitri committed suicide presumably by consuming a poisonous substance. (iv) Upon intimation given by A1 to the effect that Savitri died due to dehydration, a morgue (death case) was registered. After inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent to Community Health Centre at Ghansour. The post-mortem was conducted by a panel of doctors comprising Dr. Arjun Saxena (PW3) and Dr. Hemant Chandravanshi. Expressing inability to give any definite opinion as to cause of Savitri’s death, they preserved her viscera for histo-pathological and chemical examination. (v) Gorelal produced a letter (Article ‘A’) containing instances of cruelty meted out to Savitri at the hands of both the appellants. In the light of the findings of the morgue :: 2 :: Cr.A. No.1037/1996 inquiry, ASI O.P. Vinodia (PW4) registered a case under Section 306 of IPC by scribing the FIR (Ex.P-7). 3. The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 4. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been challenged on the following grounds – (i) There was nothing on record to suggest that Savitri had committed suicide. (ii) Letter (Article ‘A’) that was taken into account as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence was not proved to have been written either by the deceased herself or by any identifiable person at her instance. In response, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction is well founded. 5. Although, Dr. Arjun Saxena (PW3) proved existence of an ante-mortem bruise 2” x 2” on the left upper buttock region of Savitri yet, he clearly admitted that the injury could be caused due to fall on or friction against hard surface. Further, the post-mortem report indicated (Ex.P-5) that Savitri’s stomach, large intestine and bladder were empty and the Autopsy Surgeon did not rule out the possibility that continuous vomiting and loose motion could be the cause for the aforesaid condition of the abdomen. He clearly admitted that the improperly treated victim has a high probability of dying due to dehydration. In such a situation, the core question was as to whether any poisonous substance was consumed by or administered to Savitri ? 6. The disturbing feature of the case is that the report of Chemical Examiner indicating that on examination at the FSL, no chemical poison was detected in the viscera of the deceased, escaped consideration. Neither the Public Prosecutor nor the defence counsel bothered to bring the report to the notice of the :: 3 :: Cr.A. No.1037/1996 trial Judge, who also missed this material aspect of the matter through carelessness. It is relevant to note that the memo of appeal does not contain any reference to the FSL report. Needless to say that, by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chemical Examiner’s report can be read in evidence without any formal proof. 7. Contents of the report available on record are sufficient to answer the question posed above in the negative. In other words, Savitri’s death was not caused due to poisoning. 8. In these circumstances, learned trial Judge erred in holding that it was a case of suicide. Since commission of the suicide was not established with reasonable certainty, conviction under Section 306 of the IPC could not be recorded (Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 referred to). 9. Law is well settled on the point that even in a case of suicide, letter written by the deceased, which is directly connected with or related to death in question would fall within four corners of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act (Sharad Biridhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on). However, even if it is assumed that Savitri had committed suicide, the inland letter (Article ‘A’), relied on by learned trial Judge, could not have formed basis of the impugned conviction as its authenticity was in cloud in view of the following facts - (i) A bare perusal of the letter, reflecting that Savitri was persistently subjected to cruelty and harassment due to non-satisfaction of demand for a sum of Rs.20,000/- by both the appellants, would reveal that it was not written by Savitri herself. (ii) The letter appears to have been posted on 02.05.92 and delivered on 13.05.92 whereas, according to :: 4 :: Cr.A. No.1037/1996 Gorelal (PW1), transmission of the letter from Dhanwai to Sukri by post requires only 3 days. (iii) Gorelal candidly acknowledged that he had not made any complaint regarding the dowry harassment meted out to Savitri in her matrimonial home to any person or authority at any earlier point of time. (iv) Sevaram (DW1), cited in the charge sheet as the witness, who had brought Savitri back to her matrimonial home nearly one-and-half months prior to her untimely death, did not substantiate the prosecution version as to cruelty at the hands of the appellants. 10. Thus, the assertions made by Gorelal to the effect that the letter was written by Savitri and further that even prior to her death, it had reached his hands, were not acceptable. 11. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and consequent sentences are hereby set-aside. Instead, the appellants are acquitted of the offence. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded. 12. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. (R.C. MISHRA) JUDGE 17.11.11 :: 5 :: Cr.A. No.1037/1996