-:^ w<c<v !^^3 •'s^'S'*' HiG T r^K tf^-uiui i ^^E~ ^irrirg AT |SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P.SHAR!WA, J^ CrimiRai 198 •iafi'5 S ^iif B Vs. tate of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Stat POST FOR JUDGMENT ON 1 8/8/2010 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge HSGI^ ^ECHHATTjSGARS ILASPUR CrimiRal 18 of Rajendra, son of Laikhan Agharia, aged about 23 resident of lchhapur, Tahsli Saraipall, Distt.Ralpur. i/e,*sus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattlsgarh) (Crimlnai aDDealI under Sectiors 3 of Cr.P.C.) Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Shamia,J. Present:- Mr. R.S.Marhas, counsel forthe appeilant. Mr.Ashish Gupta, Pane! La'vvyer for the State. ;iii:i:5S:lIIS JUDGMENT tellvered on 18 Augvst, 2010) Chaiiengs 'in thls appeat ss to the iudgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 23.2.1991 passed by the Additionai Sessions Judas, S^^'*tK^*i^^9rr»ain^i tn !V;?ai i(aae3s s iut iu, ii; Sessions Tririai No.165/89, whereby & v, iearrsed Additlonal Sesstons Judge after hoiding the appeliant guiity for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the t.P.C. sentence him to undergo R.i. fer three years and R.l. for fsve years. Convicflon is impugned on the ground that without thsre being any lota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appei!ant as aforemeRtloned and thereby committed liiegaiity. Case of the prosecution, in brief, Is that Vedmati (since deceased)was niarried 'A'ith the appellant, she v»'as residing v.'ith him, ths appeiiant used to torture upon her and aiso used to demand dowry. On 8.2.88 af about 9 p:w. at vsiiage fto. !?'^HQrt' ir P' icchspur, Poilce Station Saraipali, deeeased Vedmati consumed poteon aad as a resutt of consuming poison, she died. Msrg intimation was recordsd vide.fcx.P/1. After summonjng ihe Utl witnesses, inquest over the dead body of deceassd Vedmati was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Dead body v»'assent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Saraipali vtde Ex.P/9. Dr-S.e.Mangrurkar (PW-3) conducted aatdpsy vide Ex.P/4 and opined a csse of suspected poisoning. Viscera ~-< • . . were prsser./ed.-FJRatiy F.i.R. was loo'ged vide Ex.P/5. During the '2-— 6. 9. course of Investigation, omaments were seized from the appeljant vide :x.P/2. Artictes were identified vide Ex.P/7. Viscera v/ere sent to Forensic Science Laborator/, Sagar and presence of zinc phosphide was confirmed on vlscera vide Ex.P/8. 4. Statements of ths witnesses were recordad r»r&Tsnrriiafi iinri&r ?%&rtfi^n '1&4 nf fhs 1 t \^ ! Ui U IC ^r O i'^ •s"ri \^i .r~ .'^. sssiiu aftsr compistion of Investigation, charge sheet was fiied bsfore the Additlonal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mshasamund, who in s, committed fhe case to the Court of the then Sessions, Raipur, /here learned Additional Sesslons Judgs, Mahsamund recelved the case on transfer for trlal. in order to prove ths guiit of the accused/appeliart, the prosecufion has examined as rriany as eisven witnesses. The accused aSong with co-accused Lekhan were examined under Sectlon 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. whers they denied the circumstsnces appearing against them and and false jmplicatioR in ths crime in questton. ed iRROcence and fali After providlng opportunlty of hearing to the partles, teamed Addltionai Sesstons Judge whiie acquitiing co-accused Lekhsn convicted & sentenced the appsiiant as aforementioned. i have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the friai Court. Learnsd counse! for fhe appeiiant vehemently argusd that in order to i, the prosecution is required to prove ihe fact that con'.'lct the accuseci the present appellant has committed torture and cruefty that too, to the extent of compelling the person to end her/his ilfe, but in fhe pressni case, the prosecutlon hss utterty faiied to prove the essentia! iRgfedienfs of the offence. SuspteiOR, hov/ever strong it may be, cannot take the p!ace,.of iega! proof. The decessed herseif v/as disabied and v.'as mentaliy' perturbed ^ such mentai deprssstc committed suicide. account of her dlsabilitv and as a resuit of such mentaE deprssston arid- perturb, she consumed poison ana On the other hand, learned State counsel supportsd the judgmerst impugned and argued that evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution is sufTscient for drawing infe?|ence that the present appeiiant •«?ji& te husband of deceased Vedmati has committed {orture and -^] crueiiy and compelied her to commii suicide. The trial Court has rightiy convlcted & ssntenced the appeiisnt as aforementionsd. 10. !n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behaif of the parties, hsve sxsmined the evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution. 2. ih: . In the present case, factum of marriage and abnQrmai death as s resuit of consumlng poison of depeased Vedmati viz., wife of the appeliant has not been substantialiy disputed by the appellant, on the other hand othenwise aiso estabfehed by the .evidences of Heeralas (PVV-1), Subdhan (PW-2), Dr.S.B.Mangrurkar (FvV-8), autopsy report Ex.F/4, merg IntimaSlon Ex.P/1, F.i.R. Ex.P/5 and FSL report Ex.P/8 v.'hich revsal that Vedmati (since dsceased) had consumed zinc phosphide poison. As regards the corripiicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in questlon, ss per evidsnce of Subdhan (P./V-2), father of deceased Vedmati, at the time of marriage the present appeliant has demanded Rs.3000/- cash, 2 % toia gotd and 100 toia sllver whteh he bas given to him aiong vifith other househoid artteies. After one month of her mamage when Vedmati came to his house, then she toid that the •!•***»S^^i«!-ar^T appeiiant has directed hsr for treatment of her ieg or he has demandsd Rs.5000/- for treatment, she has aiso Informed to him ihat even the appeisant has compeiled to break her fast of Akadashi. After six Sh months Vedmati again went to her matrimonial house, thereaiter, on 8" day, the appellant cams to his house and informeci that Vedmati is not wsil, elther she has consumed poison or a case of snake bite. V»;hen hs reached to the village of ths appeilant where he saw the dead body of his daughter, thsn he went to the Police Station and iodged the F.1.R. Ramkunwar (PW-3), mother of the deceased, has aiso substantiaiSy corroborsted We svidence of Subdhan (PW-2). Mayawati (PW-4) has / also corroborated the evidence of Subdhan (PW-2). In cross- examination of Subdhan (PiA/:2), he has deposed that st the fime of his stetement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he has stated the fsct reiating to demand of dov'sry which finds pisce In his stafement Ex.D/1, , but factum of again demand of Rs.5000/- does not find piace in Ex.D/1 Ns prevlous ststemsnt. Dsfence has pross-examined thls vvitness in ~. detaii. Defence has also cross-examined Ramkunwar (PW-3) and ^- l'33!!!".-:li»S881a "•"•"'''!BSgH Maya'A'ati (PW-4) in detaii. The evldences of these witnesses reveal that ths prssent appeiiant was eager for frsatment ofthe deceased who was disablsd by one ieg. Except single instance of demand of Rs.5000/- for treatmer.t of deceased Vsdmati, the prosecution has not adducsd any evidence in support of factum of such demand, but the evidences of fhe aforssa'id wifnesses reveal that the present appellant has msrrisd with one disabied woman VedmaSi and affer her marriage hs used to reaiize deceased Vedmatl that she is dlsabted woman. The evidence of the prosecutlon reveai that the deceased has commltted suicide probabiy cn account of frustration, but not on account of any active crueity ortorture committed by the appeiiant surficlentto end her iifs. !n the present case, the act of the appeiiant constitutes mentat crusliy to the deceased but not to the extent of abetmert for commission of suteide. yVhiie convlctlng the appellant under Ssction 306 of the I.P.C., lesrned Addlttonai Sessions Judge has not considered the speclfic requirement of ths offence punishable ynder Sectlon 306 of the I.P.C. and thersby committed ilisgaiity. The evldencs adduced on behaif of the prosscirtion is sufficlent for drawing inference that the present appeltant has committed {orture and cruelty upon his wife but not to ths extent of abetment for commission of suicide. Therefore, convicSion of the appeiiant under Section 498A ofthe i.P.C. is sustainable undsrthe law but conviction & ssntence of the appeiiant under Seciion 305 of the i.P.C. are not sustainabis under the law. As regards the question of sentence, ai the time of marriage the appeliant was having definite knowiedge about disabiifty of the deceased and after having such kno'wledge he had msmed with disabied woman but after her marri^e there 'n'as no cccaston to humiiiate or 6ondemn the disabied wpman on the ground of her disabiiity. in these ciroumstanees, sentencs of R.i. for thrse years aw?rded to the appeiiant is neither disprdportionate nor excesslve. Consequently, the appeal is partly aiiowed. Corivtetion & sentsnce of the appeflant under Sectlon 306 of the i.P.C. are hsreby set aside. However, convlGiion ofths appeiiant under Section 49SA ofthe i.P.C. aFidsentence to undergo R.i. for three y^ars Is hereby maintairied. The ^' appeilant is on bsii, he shaii immediately surrsnder befors the Addittonal Sessions Judgs, Mahasamund or sts succsssor-in-office for serving remalning sentence imposed upon him in Sessions Triai No.165/89. -—— Sd/- T.P. Sharma ' Judge