C/F/Qlllllll/l/Ill/Illl/Il/l ‘ ' ,r‘ 000063082 s’ @ \‘Q whim HIGH COURT OF JUDICMUREJaT JABAiPtR CRmINAL" APPEAL m; /°~‘3QZ’ i /.2doo [ ‘ , L /‘ L\Y\TS”‘5) aged about 35 yrs, rssidsgntof v111(ge/ Mqhara / r l////l/ ‘ Division Bench Vining“) §§E%il§§ >1 :- B‘shatram son o£ Amalharam . Risali Sector .. 253, Bhilai Distt.mrg/(/ ma)- i i f t W; J ’ - w -uw - a ‘ ’ i g ggmmgn; :- $i:at§ 0g gm). V , , g = §Q§Victinn $ent§n§__ / ‘ ‘ f unéetféection 498' 1&6. Rfi. fér three y$ar/s. ‘ ‘ X undger seceion‘ 304 B I.PQC. /V{RV.I. for life // A ‘ (Both sentence runs concurrently ) g§mxraAL APPEAatINDER sacmxgo 374 CRgmALgRQCEDURE conEg = 5 , ‘ a i A“. W w ML. l ‘ } 1w «5 ‘V w ‘( ‘1 l‘ w ‘i ‘> y > 1 € L x K ‘f /‘ ’ ‘ ‘ ,' g 9g kbo WW m 200 \ 33W, m,W . Cf IArNO . mammafam) mmmm Hewhie i'v'lr. LC. Bhadoe ann Hnn’hin Mr nhlranrirn Miqhra l i - 43”? n Shri Hanuman Pfasati Agra wai, Advocate fc' ihe appeuam. Shri Sudhir Eajpai, Panei L2 wyei‘ fer m9 respenden‘iiState. Arguments heard. §éf LCBE‘saénn .i ;'- 4' This éppea§ is directeé agai cf Eenience daigd 25-1-‘70QG p‘ Baiod, D§$trici purg in ‘ $e$sicms Judge afEer hoi-ding ihe aacwediappeiiant guiity far cammi3$§onz am; 304~Bof the iniiiian Fermi Cede, or 3 years ane‘ imprisenment fer iir'e respectiveiy. Both ihe 5emences are dh'ected io run concurrentiy. : Ca3e of ihe prosecuiion i$ mmffwmm é;aa%wsn%$ ?.E. .n E"b’‘ Y“ Gm? jua‘gment dictaied br‘i i'ais. QFUAL bu. Mai :hat deceased Vaema was marrieci wifh amweé-appeiianf an 2-5-153gé, ihereafter she siartesi re3§d3ng wiih he? husbana‘j‘. Sefore ihe .death} ‘abm of offence under $ecti0n$>4£z8~~A $emencer§ him i0 undergo Ri. f t 2G aey: she was residing withher mciher Cha§t§ Bai m Madauda. At ihat time, the accuSeci was aka wed ta re>t§cie a€ Madauda in his mothe amusedappxeiiaeit received the i iher'efarex Veena and the aceused-appeiiant, on 2842~2OS$ Veem coneumed poisor} ‘Erganic §3hasphofuel She was taken to Chrietian Heepiiai, Dham'iari where ehe died on acceur‘a‘: ef ceneumption of poieom. Merg imimatien eent iey Cihristian Haepiiai, Dhar whereupon the Siatieh Hcuee Gffic m \\V‘ 1formation that his mGthef has accusedwappeiéant wemt m the heuee sf the r-in~taw’s house. 0n 27~t2»~1‘3§4, the 'ied’, f l g i f i I etv‘! 5 wee xteri tr; the Peiice Statton, Dherntarr er, Poiice Station, Erhamtari reached to P.T.O. i. ,. . 7.7, Wev..i,i.w,7..AHmmw._- Wi...e.e_~:~, (, “ist mejudgment of convictien aha? oyder esseci by Addiiienai SeesiOhe Judge, 72i95, whereby the teamed Ada‘itianei t, XI—HC—78 J . WW,W§,W o CV‘Q'EQD. $03 zooo ..o....o.o.s..s.o. .. m 200 WW(W) HETWW i mmwm “z- WW§WW éawm me Hospitai, He prepared the incmes‘c Ex. P-2 on the body 0f Veena. P03? monem on the body of Veena was conducted by Dr. RH Mishra and Dr. U.t$. Bajpai, ihey prepared post cause of death ie due i0 asphy) marrrage carer wae taken info uncier tx. P—i. Visceras were pre exammaticm to Forensic Science r #11 was received As perihe re; the caneiusisn ihat visceras inegctieide (Qhosphomidan). Sta i therearter offence under Sectior compietien of investigation, chart; the Court of Jue'iciai Magistrate i the case to the $essions Juctg eessrens Judge receivect the cas: e. Prosecution in orcier to es appeiiant examined i2 witneese was recorded u'na‘er.$ection 3 materiai appearing agaihet him i that he has beer! faiseiy impiicate 4. Lear-neat Additionai Siessit e. We have heard $hri Agra traipai on he‘nair‘ of the State. £5. Case of the prosecution deceased) with accused-appeiia I w hortem report Ex. P-zi. They opined that 1a caused by suspected poisoning. 'fhe oossesston oy the investigating Gfhcer sewed and same were sent for chemicai Laboratory: $agar, from where’report Ex. aon or viscera, the Laboratory reached to were contammg Organo phosphorus demerits of withesses were recorded, i 'JUat-B of LRC. was registered. After e sheet was fried against the accused tn‘ ‘rrst Crass, Batod who tn turn committed e, Uurg from where teamed Rddittonai a cm trahster for triaf. . tamrsh the charge againet the accused- es. Statement of the accused—appettant 3 of CrFC in which he denied the n the prosecution evidence arrd stated d m the crime. ns Judge after hearing counset for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appeiiant as atorementioneci. ‘_ wal on nehatf of the appettant and Shrt is that atter marriage of Veena (since ft, he started harassing and subjecting P.T.O. “VJ A x Ad‘s XI»HC—78 '\, r ) WW, 3?! HH§, a?! 8% ow; ,N b S153 kw? Wm .t‘oto.o‘¢ootooo.o"o FF;I 200 mamm WW(W) 1 WW§WI§W am myW : matwaésr 3 §KW3H§$T _(‘* her to crueity mr aemand of dowry Le‘ metorcycie. in order to bring home ‘mé cnme under aec’mon :5u4-E’ of iFhCV, ihe prosecution i5 required i0 ieszabiisii i ma: (i) me marriage was saiemnized wiihin a period 9f 7 years jrrom the date of offerice; (ii) death of women was caused by any burns or ‘borjiiy injury or occurred otherwise than under normai circumstances; anci it be shown tha‘r sooi'ber‘ore inai) must be shown tha‘r her death she was subjecieei i0 ‘crueiiy or harassment by her husband or any reia‘rive or her husbanci for, 5? in conneo’iion wiih, any demand for dowry. I. in the presenr case, ii ie admitted position rhai Veena (eince deceased) wee married to accused on 2545394, she died on 28—12—IQL—74 0n account or consumption or ooison (Qrganic F’hosphorus} when ehe was at rne residence or accused-appeiiant, therefore, the first two requirements = are earisrreo. o. Now the question remains as to whether the prosecution has been aoie to estabrisn beyond reaso‘iabie doubt against the accused—appeiiant that soon before her death, Vee ne was subjected to crueity or harassment by aocused-appeiiant in connection with demand oi dowry i.ev motorcyoie. i io establish rnrs racthme prosecution has examined PW. i Laiita Eat ,r‘x- step mother of the deceased, PW. 2 Kratdas Ghiiendra- tether of the oeoeaseo, KW. 3 Umesh Kumar- brother—in-iaw (Bafmori of the o‘eceased, HW. 4 omt. Chai‘ti Bai- reei mother of the deceased, RW. 5 human Bai- sister-in-iaw ('Eiherbhrj of the deceased and PW. 6 Smt. Punbai- grandmother of the drkceased. Aimost every witness has stated that the accused used to iarzrss and subject Veena to crueity on the ground that she shouid bring motorcycie which was not given in the dowry at the time of marriage. Now whether in View of the evidence of the above Witnesses. the prosecution has been abie to estabiish that soon before the P.T.O. XI»HC—7 8 mm, Wig, W3? . 9::A.»&..c.-§i§./f‘?w WNW W 1H 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WW§WWA mmwm L, L éawm (seam, she wa3 subjectea’ ta harassment anti cruéi‘ty for demand of abwry, after perusing ihe evidence of pmsecutim wiine$se3, we are of the consmered opinion i'nai the prosecution ha?» been utieriy faiied to esiabiish 1 me above Tact for 'the foiiowing reason:- 1 9 Juei afier the dea‘m afjieena, inquest Ex. R2 0n the bociy was prepared by rhe Siation Herrse Qffr‘eer, F'oiiee $iatien, Dham‘rari in presemce or Kramae Ghriendm- faiher Of the deceased as aise $mi. u .. chairmei- reai moiher 0f the deeeased, in which rfi has been memicnee‘ mat the eceueed and ihe deceaeed ueed to reeie‘e in ESS'F' Seeior e Bhiiai ae‘zhe accusefj was working in ihe Bhiiai Sreei Piaht. Ae ihere wee eight czury or the aeweedeppeiiam, therefere, 'v’eena was reeiding with hern mother Sm? Chairi Bai ai Maciaucia. The acmreed aieo ueeci to reeide wiih hie wrre iri the house of his rnoiher~in~iaw. They were reeieihg fheir eince . iae’r 2Q day‘e. Qh 27-f‘2-igg4, a meeeage was received the“: fhe mefher ef :he aecueeci—appeiiam hacr’ e;<;a’rer:§ af Mich-era, iherefere, fhe deceasee‘ ene the accused eame i0 ivioha 'a on fhe same eiay and hex? day merning Le. zzs-12-IQQ4, fhe tieceaseei censumeei ‘Qrganie Phoepherue‘, she was faker: to Eathena Hoepifai, 'Dha nteri where She eied. The father emf the mother of the deceased were present at the time of preparation of thie inqueer report. i hey naci not eaici anything about harassment or crueity by the aooueeci—appeiiant with Vee‘na for demehci er” dowry. Even aftet the death or their riaughter, these pereons ciici not make any oompiaint before the pouce regarding ciemanci ef down; ae eieo harasssmeni: anti orueity‘by the eccueeo-appeuant. "to. 3ta‘iemen‘rs of Cheitiioai sEx. D43) —mother of the deceaeeoi wee reooroeo’ on 2"—3—i§§5, Statement of Kreto‘ae Ghiienoire (Ex. Ba?) w- father or the oeceaseo‘ wee reooro'eoi n 26~i~’i§£5 etaternent of Leiitahai (Ex. P.T.O. 9;6, XI—HC-78 ,J W wwm \ N Wm ‘00....‘ooooo Q fojfm 000.00..“ 200 WW(W) WW§WW %3Ti%rn¢m%¥f S p 3“)— step maiher o: the aec ‘sLaLemem 0‘ Kuman bar ‘tx recamacx on zw~1-1UU:3 Le. wu been \ OTierea by me remmiecj with $U§h a (may. tv‘ 1a1¥zer 2&3 tiays of the mcmem. i :‘the de¢ea$eci aha me aCCUSei wai‘mofher of the dewaserj ar my (AwbeaSe ”SEQ EO T533K‘ie m £hai€i5ai hag caiegoncaiéy $13 ihusband 1 in $95tor 4, 5mm: m I ihem 34 daya moth m mem u campiamed against me accgSE ihe month cf $Ecembei‘, Veer wiih her a? her hause at Mac! acwseci—appexiam is riemandmg eiher wime$se$ have axsa Siam never totd thie feet to any otnei_ i‘he matter waS reponecs ta the rmmigned above afe taken tog £ eaeed was, reeordea‘ or! 131-1593 ant: LN?) eieier—in—mw or me Geeeaeecj was 1 one monih’e deiay. No expianaiion nae orosecu'tio'n as to why theee siaiemente were an t§1e eiatemem of Lamabai was reoomea xerper ihe evidence, iuet before the ueam; imao‘peiiani Lisseci io resinze wm Lzhaiibav 1d before ihai the ecweeénappeliam and Mohara. in poiice diary Siatemem tx. U-‘é, :eci' thei Veena ueed io resme With her heir quarier. A‘i ihai time, She eiayeri wrm sec? to reside peacetuny ana Veena never Thereatter m e and aecueectappetiam stanect reacting auda. in one night ‘v'eeneefteeiosea that 3 motorcyeie enct he is harassing nei’. tven ad e0 but they have eteteci that they nave person not eonvened any Hancnayet net if ah the eircumstaneee ‘W‘lei’ Omy iméi'éiine Earl Eé QidWH 'm&i Eh?“ stew of harassment fer demenni Gt aowry wee cookee up ehiy wet eean et’ Veena. Haoi the accueednat peiient used ta haraee the oieceaeee tor Qiemantzt of dowry, then there reeiding with his wite at his continuously. compiaint matte ’ey Veena, er appeiiaht. Hae veena sale so \‘ P‘T.O. e appeimnt t 'asemem. pélice. t hei‘ETGFé, WES ¥10 quESiiOH G3: aC€USe@-a$péiiai’i‘i nether—inuiawts piaee for aheut 26 daye Llxv tie i cfid not eay anything te he accused- to the mother, in natures eourse, it was Even PW 4 {thaitibai hae stated that even ete \xw o;n XI—HC—78 j mm,m Chg“... WW” WW<W> W f0? £00 ooo~t~ OW 200 mmm vwmm matWm f4, expectea that wmn the accu have askec: a$ :0 Why he as me‘xher 9f Veena has stateci I she mmpiained about the m sia‘tw that they had noi discte 3 amy meeting or their casie p‘ Tween abie i9 es‘xabiish beyw giegih 0f Veena, she was sub? wiih ciemami of duwry aha t: cm’xvistion of the accused u 3us§ained. ‘ H. As Tar :«a‘s the 2onvrctio 498A of LRU. I$ concernw, mi beer} abie ‘m estamiSn tnai 1'2. in the rewm me app accused-appeiiam untier senience$ impesec: upon mm S‘ $6 that LWE’ dCCUSéG amjéihim 18 m Cletémwn SmCE ib-l dUUU méléby he is. in Uetentmh WW§WW éawm n ef i‘ne accusedeappehani encier Semmh n ‘or the $ame Feastms, the prosettuimn has :he accused subjeeted Veena to crueWy. eai eucceeds ahe‘ ihe cehvietieh of ihe tiections 4‘38-A and 3M3 of sed used i0 reside with them, we smoum‘ hara‘ssmg Veena. PW. 1' Lama Bai—stap Wat Veeraa came iwice aha both me timea ‘mana o? mmerwcw, buf this Wime55 hag aed thi$ fact to a‘ny me, nor ihey comveméa aapia Therefare, ihe prosecutisn has no? d reamnabie daubi iha": won bemre me ctw i0 harawment or cruexw m cannecimn A iS Why SE19 COWWTMEEJ b! KEG. H‘}&¥"9T0l’9, ‘mder Setrtion 364:3 a“? H’g cannc‘t be {P.Q ahe une‘er i‘heee seciione are sei aeme. i: 5e einc'e more tr en SN years He be sex at iibeny gonhwnn n he’i fequked ih any other case. a l ‘ " 3di- " L.c.BHAD.00 Judge P.T.O.