APPLICANT: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.670 of 1990 Uma Shankar Pande son of Ramnarayan, aged about 48 years, resident of Sada Staff Quarter No.2/3, East Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, M.P.(nowC.G.) NON-APPLICANTS: Versus 1. Raghav Pande son of Babulal, aged about 45 years, 2. Smt. Shyam Sunder Pande, wife of Raghav Pande, aged about 44 years, Both residents of Quarter No.17-A, Street No.22, Sector No.2, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg. 3. Ashok Kumar Pande, son of Raghav Pande, aged Sbout 25 years, resident quarter No.17-A, Street No.22, Sector No.2, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg. At present Captain Ashok Pande, Engineering Core, Bengal Regiment, Roorki, 56-A.P.O. (U.P.) 4. The State of M.P. (now the State of C.G.) (Revision under Section 397/401 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Present: None present for the applicant. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 3/accused. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/non-applicant No.4. APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS/: (Accused) AND Criminal Appeal No.220 of 1991 State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Raghav Pandey son of Babulal Pandey, aged about 45 years, R/o C- Sector-2, Street No.22, Quarter N0.17-A, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg. 2. Smt. Shyamsundar Pandey wife of Raghav Pandey, aged about 44 years, R/o Sector-2, Street No.22, Quarter No.17-A, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg. yf AO [ '^^E^» ^,-- ^y ® <1 3. Ashok Kumar Pandey son of Raghav Pandey, aged 25 years, R/o Sector-2^ Street No.22, Quarter No.17-A, BhRai Nagar, Distt. Durg (M.P.)(now C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 378 (1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/appellant. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the respondents/accused. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J JUDGMENT (Delivered on 21st July, 2010) 1. Since Criminal Revision No.670/1990 filed at the instance of private party and Criminal Appeal No.220/1991 filed by the State are against the same judgment of acquittal dated 19 November, 1990 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.137/86, they are being disposed of by this commonjudgment. 2. By Cr.A.No.220/1991 the State has challenged legality & propriety ofthe judgment of acquittal dated 19 November, 1990 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 137/86, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused ofthe charges under Sections 306 & 498A ofthe I.P.C.. ' 3. A private person i.e. one Uma Shankar Pandey - father of Smt. Geeta Pandey (since deceased), has also challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 19 November, 1 990 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 137/86 by filing Criminal Revision No.670/1990 under Section 397 read with Section 401 ofthe Cr.P.C.. 4. By both revision & appeal, the judgment of acquittal is challenged on the ground that the trial Court has not considered the evidence sufficient for conviction of the accused and thereby committed illegality. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that daughter of Uma Shankar Pandey (PW-1) namely Smt. Geeta (since deceased) was married to accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Pandey, son of accusedNos.1 &2. The accused persons used to commit torture & cruelty upon Geeta on account of demand of dowry and as a result of such torture & cruelty, Geeta poured kerosene oil upon herself on 10-4-86 and set herself ablaze. Immediately Geeta was shifted to hospital and her dyihg D r^.- ^ -.;-^i •../ ). declaration Ex.P-7 was recorded. Geeta succumbed to the injuiTes sustained by her and merg was intimqted. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-4 inquest over the dead body of Geeta was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Dead body of Geeta was sent for autopsy to Govemment Hospital, Durg, vide Ex.P-BA and autopsy was conducted by a team of doctors vide Ex.P-8 who found that cause of death was shock as a result of extensive burns. Written complaint was made by Uma Shankar Pandey(PW-l) - father of the deceased vide Ex.P-1. Articles given to the deceased at the time of marriage were seized and identified vide Ex.P-2. Kerosene oil container and burnt pieces of clothes were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-5. Other articles were also seized vide Ex.P-9. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Statements ofthe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe Cr.P.C.. 6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court ofChief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Durg, from where learned AdditionalSessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. Defence has examined Satyadev Prasad Shrivastava (DW-1), D. Tusharkant (DW-2), Vipin Kumar Roy (DW-3), Smt. Bina Pathak (DW-4), Shyamlal Dewangan @ Amar (DW-5) & O. Gopal Krishnan (DW-6) and has taken specific defence that on the basis of five years' family relation, the accused themselves had negotiated for marriage with Geeta on the ground that they believe in Gayatri parivar and they do not want any dowry in marriage. Relations between the parties were very cordial. After solemnization of mamage, the deceased & accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Pandey went to Pachmadi where they enjoyed their life and taken photographs which support the case of cordial relation between aecused No.3 & the deceased i.e. husband & wife. After death of the deceased, her father has lodged report against the accused, on account of love & affection with the deceased. w 8. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, leamed Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 306&498Aofthel.P.C.. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. lO.None present on behalf of applicant Uma Shankar Pandey in Criminal Revision No.670/1990. No representation is made. 11.Mr. Sushil Dubey, leamed.State counsel, vehemently argued fhat the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for conviction of the accused under Sections 306 & 498A of the I.P.C. but on technical ground and assumption, the trial Court has acquitted the accused and thereby committed illegality. 12.The revision petition reveals that by acquitting the accused, the trial Court has faited to exercise the jurisdictibn vested on it and thereby committed illegality. 13.0n the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the accused, vehemently opposed the appeal & revision and submitted that both the families were in close relation 4-5 years prior to marriage, deceased Geeta used to visit the house of the accused and frequently she used to help accused No.2 in cooking. The deceased and her family members were members of Gayatri parivar. The accused were impressed by the high tradition of the deceased family and they themselves had offered for marriage without any dowry. After solemnization of marriage, the deceased was residing in the house of the accused happily. Deceased Geeta was a sacramental woman and she used to believe in simple life with high tradition. Accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Pandey is also a simple person, but unfortunately he used to consume liquor casually with his friends circle which was not tolerable to the deceased and as a result of such circumstances, she has committed suicide. Mr. Vishnu Koshta frankly admits that accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Pandey - husband of the deceased is more or less morally liable for the unfortunate incident, but he is not liable for commission of suicide. The accused persons have not abetted commission of suicide, they have not demanded dowry or they have not committed cmelty or torture upon deceased Geeta. 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, 1 have examined the evidence available on record. 15.1nthe present case, mamage of deceased Geeta with accusgd No.3 Ashok Kumar Pandey and commission of suicide by Geeta have not been substantially disputed on behalf of the accused persons.otherwise also it is established by the evidence and documents filed on behalf of the prosecution that Geeta was married to Ashok Kumar Pandey, she poured kerosene oil upon her, set herself ablaze and thereby committed suicide in the house of the accused persons. 16.As regards abetment of suicide and torture & cruelty by the accused persons to deceased Geeta, Uma Shankar Pandey (PW-1) - father of the deceased has categorically deposed in detail that both the families were having cordial relations prior to mamage, they are members of Gayatri parivar and on one occasion deceased Geeta sung a devotional song (bhajan) the titte of which was "^? wwa w -^w t" which was very impressive to accused No.3 and other accused. Accused.No.3 made a proposal for his marriage with Geeta. Thereafter, the mamage ceremony was performed. Even prior to her marriage on one occasion when finger of accused No.2 was cut, deceased Geeta used to help accused No.2 in cooking and continuously she helped and cooked meals for ten days. Accused No.3 was appointed as Lieutenant. At the time of marriage when he (this witness) gave suit cloth to accused No.3, for the first time accused No.2 demanded scooter, TV & Rs.10,000/- as baraat expenses, but he was not in a position to provide such things. At the time of marriage and after marriage, the accused persons used to condemn him, they misbehaved with the deceased and finally his daughter committed suicide. 17.Gopal Krishna Bhatheja (PW-2), Kum. Manju Pandey (PW-4) - sister of deceased Geeta, Ramadhar Singh (PW-5) & Rajesh Kumar Pandey (PW-5) - brother of the deceased have substantially corroborated the evidence of Uma Shankar Pandey (PW-1). Defence has- cross- examined these witnesses in detail. 18.Uma Shankar Pandey (PW-1) has admitted in para 55 of his cross- examination that he has not specifically mentioned the factum ofdemand of dowry in the report because at the time of lodging report he was disturbed. In para 72 he has specifically admitted that he and his family t.S-' ) /-/^ '^*t~ ,t,/' '•'^' dislike liquor, meat & egg and his daughter also dislikes liquor, meat & egg. He has admitted the photographs Exs.D-6 to D-19 in his cross- examination. He has also admitted the photographs Exs.D-20 to D-36. 19.Gopal Krishna Bhatheja (PW-2) has deposed in para 4 of his evidence that after marriage, Geeta was in tension on account of some dowry transaction. But he has admitted in para 19 of his cross-examination that prior to marriage he was informed by father of the deceased about this fact. 20.Uma Shankar Pandey (PW-1) has admitted in para 115 of his cross- examination that accused No.3 casually used to take liquor which was against their prestige. Kum. Manju Pandey (PW-4) - sister of deceased Geeta has also admitted the photographs. of the deceased & accused No.3. She has further admitted in para 55 of her evidence that accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Pandey used to take non-vegetarian. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (PW-5) - brother of the deceased has admitted in his cross- examination that after the death of his sister, he was badly upset and his mother & father were also upset. 21.0efence has examined Satyadev Prasad Shrivastava (DW-1), D. Tusharkant (DW-2), Vipin Kumar Roy (DW-3), Smt. Bina Pathak (DW-4), Shyamlal Dewangan @ Amar (DW-5) & O. Gopal Krishnan (DW-6) to prove the fact that the accused persons have not demanded dowry and they have not refused any suit cloth. Photographs are sufficient for proving cordial relation between the husband & wife. Ashok Kumar Pandey casually used to take liquor and non-vegetarian that was the substantial cause of disturbance. 22.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons on the ground that they have never committed torture & cruelty upon the deceased, the deceased & her family members were persons of high moral values, they were members of Gayatri parivar and do not believe in dowry. The aforesaid circumstances were causes of attraction of the accused family for marriage and the accused persons themselves had come with an offer for marriage without any dowry. The marriage was solemnized without any dowry. Thereafter, accused No.3 & the deceased went to enjoy their life to Pachmadi where they enjoyed their life and had taken different photographs which show that their relations were very cordial ~y '? } Soma and they had enjoyed there. Howevar, accused No.3 was in the habit of taking liquor and non-vegetarian casually which was not acceptable to the deceased on sacramental ground and that has caused mental hurt to the deceased, and on account of such casual act of accused No.3 the deceased committed suicide. 23. Findings of the trial Court are based on the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 24. In the present case, evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, clearly show that there was no demand of dowry and the accused pereons have never committed cruelty upon the deceased, but conduct of accused No.3 relating to liquor & non-vegetarian was not tolerable and acceptable to the deceased and in such circumstances, she was not in a position to adjust herselfwith the accused family and finally she committedsuicide. However, this act does not fall under the category of aid, abetment or instigation for commission of suicide. Findings of the trial Court are based on the evidence of the parties. By acquitting the accused persons, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or the trial Court has not exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it warranting any interference inexercise of revisional jurisdiction. 25.Consequently, the revision filed by the private party and the appeal filed on behalf of the State against the judgment of acquittal are devoid of merit and they are liable to be dismissed. Criminal Revision No.670/1990 and Criminal Appeal No.220/1991 are hereby dismissed. Sd/-^,,'" T. P. Sharma Judge y?