;/ €.. p CF0000057996 ^ hncib ('••Wfl IJS THE HIGH COURT OP M^DHYA PRADESH AT J^BALPUR '9.k(? ..._ C'r.Appeal N©.,.^._,._l ^',,/l0 94 . 3<" ^».^~^-^- Krteyn /CerA^^ <M-—>-.............,,, rrij APPSL'LtANT 'IB Jail ^" ^Q^ K—.?-i^ Versus aSSPONDE]:?F Bisoha Ram' Devanga^^ aged about 30 years^Son of,Kolhu 5am • ^' • . . - . • • . De^a^gan^Occupation; - S@rvice Bhilai St@®l.Plaat,Bhilai,K/o. Vltlage ^turmunda ^ P »0* ^femi , P < S» Nan<llni^ distt. Durg 4. M< P ,y . Stat®©fM..P. / CRIMINAL APFEAL m'©ER SECTION :374(2) OP THE COD2 QP CRIMI^AL PROCSDURE,1973. f:-— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1994 APPELLANT Bisoha Ram Devangan VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh S.hri Ravi Bhagat counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDERSECTION374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (23.06.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.3.1994 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 289/1993 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marrjage of the deceased narnely Janki Bai with the accused/appellant was solemnized in the year 1984 and out of their wedlock three issues were born to her. It is alleged that the deceased had sustained burn injuries on 18.4.1993 and succumbed to the sameon 19.4.1993. On the basis of Merg Ex. P-10, FIR (Ex. P-14) was registered on 21.4.1993 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. After completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police on 27.5.1993 against the present appellant and his mother Kala Bai and father Kolhuram for the offences under sections 304- B, 306 and 498-A IPC. However, the trial Court had framed charge against them underSections 306 and 498-A IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. \&' •l3. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has acquitted the other accused persons i.e. mother a.nd father of the appellant of all the charges levelled against them. Even the appetlant herein has been acquitted ofthe charge u/s 306 but he has been convicted and sentenced u/s498-A IPC. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made against the appellant herein are general and omnibus in nature that immediately after marriage the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. He submits that had it been so, the deceased could not have lived with them for nine years. He submits that small disputes, as has come in the evidence are common in the families and the same should have been ignored by the Court below. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that looking to the materialcollected by the prosecution, conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in this appeal. 8. Rupa Bai (PW-1) - the mother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased with the present appellant was solemnized in the year 1984 and one-two months thereafter when her family members had gone to take her back to the maternal house, the accused persons had not sent her but they had sent her abouta month thereafter. She has stated that two-four months after the marriage when the deceased had visited her matemal house, she had told that the accused persons used to harass her for demand of TV. According to this witness, the deceased had told her that the accused persons were not behaving with her properly and had stopped talking to her. She has stated that once her son had gone to the matrimonjal house of the deceased and after returning there-from he had informed her that the accused persons were having quarrets with her. In cross examination, she has stated that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased sometimes used to scold the childreh of the deceased and sometimes used to love them also. She has stated that on one or two occasions mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased had come to *•'"• ^— her house and stayed there for two days comfortably but did not complain anything against the deceased. If seen as a whole, the statement of this witness appears to be full of contradictions and omissions and does not point out anything substantial against the accused/appellant. Sudhakar Rao (PW-3) is the neighbour of the accused persons and it is he who first df all had reached their house after the incident and extinguished the fire. This witness has not made any allegation against the accused persons. Dushyant Lal Dewangan (PW-4) has made the similar statement to that of mother of the deceased (PW-1). Dr. Kailash Kumar Mishra (PW-5) who had conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased has stated that she died on account of burn injuries. Parvati Gajpal (PW-6) - another neighbour of the deceased has stated that the deceased had not made any complaint to her against the accused persons. However, she has stated that sometimes disputes on trivial matters used to erupt between the deceased and her in-laws. Patwari - Nand Kumar (PW-8) is the witness who had prepared spot map. Dr. P.K. Rath (PW-10) who had first medically examined the deceased has not stated anything against the accused persons. Surendra Kumar (PW-11) has stated that the deceased was the niece of his friend Babulal and once he had told him that the accused persons were harassing the deceased for demand of TV. Babulal Dewangan (PW-13) the maternal uncle of the deceased has stated that as the accused/appellant was having illicit relation-ship with a nurse and that is why the deceased had committed suicide. However, at this stage, this witness has been declared hostile. Assistant Sub Inspector L.B. Singh (PW-14) who had conducted the investigation has supported the case of the prosecution. 9. Thus what appears from the evidenceof the witnesses is that none of them has made any specific altegation against the accused/appellant that hewas harassing the deceased for demand of dowry. Rather mother of the deceased has stated that once the in-laws of the deceased had visited her house and.stayed there-comfortably for two days but no complaint against the deceased was made to her. Record also shows that the allegations made against the appellant are general and omnibus in nature. Further, acting upon the same piece of evidence the Court below has acquitted the other two accused persons and when nothing specific f/' g"s'!^%, "%8S^. ^ t ^w% i ^. ^. .^ ^. P-- -••:;-:" ...^/ -<!/- has been brought forward on record against the present appellant, he is entitled to receive benefit of doubt. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Courtdoes not find it just and proper to enter into an agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment impugned dated 4.3.1994 as regards conviction of the present appellant is set aside. Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge