N ‘THE fiIGH OURT OF IWHYA PRADE$H AT ABLPUR ‘I C JA § caxMmAL APPEAL No. [m 1 01." 1994 S ANT x a Jl d 6 ; giri f Cadrapl cn of a hma s Baléu Prasad aiswa, .age 2 years Aricutu st; resident of Nawagaon, Police Sation Kota, District Bilaspur (M.P.) -3 VERSUSV :- x RES?0NDENT : state of Madhya Pradash. v CRIMxNAL APPEAL UNEER SECTION'aum) OF THE; CODE OF i, ; / I CRIMINAL PROCEDURE . APPELL @Jzg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 1994 APPELLANT Chandrapal VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Akhtar Hussain Adv. Appears on behalf of Sri V.C.Ottalwar, Counsel for the appellant. \-A\ Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (15.06.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order date‘d / 19.09.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial. No. 404/1992 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Section 306 &498—A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs. 400 u/s 306 and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 400 u/s 498—A IPC plus default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 8.7.1989 merg intimation (Ex. P-12) was registered by the police and based on this written report (EXP—1) and'FIR (Ex. P—13) were registered on 10.7.1989. lt is alleged that on 7.7.1989 deceased Savitri wife of the accused/appellant died by hanging herself in the house of the accused/appellant. After investigation challan was filed by the police on 29.9.1989 under sections 498-A and 304-B/34 IPC against the present appellant and two other accused persons namely Baldau and Shantibai who are father and‘mother of the present appellant. On 29.1.1994 charges were framed against all the accused persons under Sections 498—A, and 304—B and in the alternative ' u/s 306 lPc. 3. y 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 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2 s y‘ ., 2’ which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the other accused persons of the charges levelled against them. The present appellant has also been acquitted of the charge u/s 304-B IPC but convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record includingthe judgment impugned. is 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submis that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken'as'it is; the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant as the ingredients of abetment as enshrined under Section 107 IPC are not attracted to the case in hand. He submits that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested ones and no independent witness has been examined by the pro‘se’cution’to connect the accused/appellant with the crime in question. He submits that though unfortunately the deceased committed suicide by hanging, on the basis of the material collected by the prosecution conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC can not stand. He submits that the prosecution has seized three letters (Articles A, B and C)' 'b‘utwno‘n’e'of'them reflects anything against the accused/appellant. On the contrary, the letters reflect that the deceased had requested her relatives to pray God to save her husband. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent supports the judgment impugned and submits—that the'deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused/appellant since beginning which ultimately drove her to take such an extreme step of commission of suicidé and in these circumstances the findings recorded by the Court below in the judgment impugned being fullyjustified do not require to be interfered with. .e... 8. Ram Bihari (PW—1) e brother of the deceased has stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused/appellant on 23.6.1988 and since then she was residing in her matrimonial home with the present appellant and other accused persons. According to him, after t " ' ‘ ”'3’ receiving the information of the death of the deceased when he along with other persons reached the house of the accused/appeuant, he saw that dead body of the deceased was lying there. He has stated that when the deceased had visited her maternal home after marriage, she had informed that the accused/appellant used to beat her saying that though her brothers are well off, they did not give anything in marriage. He has further stated that once the accused/appellant had asked the de ceased to get Rs. 10,000. Shyam Bihari Jaiswal (PW-2) — another brother of the deceased has not made any specmc allegation against the accused/appellant. Narayan Prasad (PW—3) — the independent witnesshas also not made any allegation against the accused/appellant regarding any harassment to the deceased. Ram Milan Jaiswal (PW-4) — brother—in—law of the deceased has stated in his evidence that the accused/appellant had demanded Rs. 10,000 from the deceased for developing his business. He has stated that the deceased used to write letters to his wife and he has admitted the same to be in the handwriting of the deceased. Ahilyabai (PW-6) who happened to be sister of the deceased has stated that the deceased used to make complaint to her that the accused/appellant used to ill-treat her and demand Rs. 10,000 for developing his business. Mantora Bai (PW—7) — the mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased had informed her that after consuming liquor, her husband to beat her. She has further stated that accused/appellant was running a General Store and was demanding Rs. 10,000 for its development. Dr. V.K. Khetrapal (PW-10) is the witness who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. Head Constable namely Laxmi Prasad (PW—12), R.K. Dwivedi (PW—14) ASI and B.P. Dwivedi (PW—15) — inspector, who had conducted the investigation haVe supported the case of the prosecution. 9. Thorough perusal of the evidence of the witness does not bring forth any specific allegation made against the accused/appellant on the basis of which he can be convicted under Section 306 IPC as the elements of ' abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC are complet‘ely missing. On the contrary, the letters seized by.the presecution go to show that the deceased Was having some grudge against the accused/appellant and that her m'ental condition was not soundaas contents ofthe letters said to have been written by her suggest that she was nurturing doubt about her s i ‘ 2 ‘ ,u_ husband to have imcit intimacy with some other woman. Secondly, the demand of Rs. 10,000 if any. made by tne’accused/appeuant was for 10. Thus the prosecution has not brought on record any material whatsoever to enable this Court to endorse the view taken by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned - accordingly it is allowed. Judgment impugned convicting and sentencing developing his business which cannot be termed as dowry. above. in these ciroumstances the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused/appellant is set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is reported to be already on bail. His bail fir—#477 it sw- ‘i Pritinker Diwaker Judge bonds stand discharged. /