|lt §SBe6 <5 IN THE HIGH COBRT OF MADHBA C»ADESH, JABALFUR—-—— ^- APPEAL KO. ^&L\ OF 1996 SUR£TABAI, wife of Mehattar Ran aged about 48 years, restdent of village Bhainsnudi, PoliceStation Rurud, Tahsil Dhambtari, District Raipur, M.P. VBtSUS RESPONDENT THE STATE OF MAEHYA PRADESH APPEAL UMDER SECTIOS 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 'ii 1"111 S '•••-.; /r' ^:;-- 'S. r^ ^.," &ARH A3 •ics. Pritinker &iwoker i^ifib^it wi"f?» sf AA?th/itt^r' i5^im l.-l^l •i'f J i <ui •;B? ( *'tj''.'!»•;i t^-i } a ^fii rs'-uy 5 s Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattjsacrhl Shri M.D. Dhote,counss!for the apDeliant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Pcnel Lawver for the itate. C&IMINAL FROCE&URE (21. ( Present appeai arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.1996 passed by Additiona! Ses-sions Judge, bhamtari in Sessions Tria! No. '81/1994 conyicting the accused/Qppeltcnt for the offencss punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencinq him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year-, and pc)' fine of Rs. 200, in default of psyment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/S 498-.A, to underao rigorou-s imprisonment for two years &nd six months, and to pcy fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/S 306 IPC. 2. Cose of the prosecution in brJef is that the marriage of deceased .AAc.iti Bai wo.s solemnized with son of accused/appel!ant Lekhram about 1 ^ years prior to the date of incident i.e. 6.9.1993. It is alleged that on 5.9.1993 immediateiy after delivery of a chiid, deceased Maiti Bci consumed some poisonous substonce, as a r'esu't of w.hich she died on 6.9.1993. M.srg intimo+ion wa-s recorded vide. E-x.P-3 o.nd •^•is^ based on that, F.I.R. (Ex.P-11) was recorded on 27,5.1993 against the accused/appejiant, her husba"d and son nameiy Prcsni hs.l 3. So as to hold to accused/appeiiants guiity, prosecution has sxamined as many a-s 15 witnesses in support of its ca.se. Statement of the o.ccused persons wers aSso rscorQsd under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the chorges jeyelled o.Goinst them and pieaded the'r innocence. and faise implico.tion in the case. 4. During the pendency of the trlai, cc-accused Prem!a! has expired. Howeve", by the impugRed judament ths iearned cour't below has acquitted the husband ond the son of the appeliant but has convicted cmd sentenced the accuse,d/appel!ant QS mentioned above. Hence this apseai. ' 5. Counsei for the appeilant submits that even if the entire co.se of the prosecuTion is taken as it is, under no stretch of imagination accused/appe.!!ant can be- convictsd for the offence under Sections 498-.A ond 306 of the Indian Penai Code. He submits that there is absolutelvno evidence on recor'd to show that the deceo.sed wos subjected to crueity or harG-ssment by the accused/appeilant for demand of dowry and further the Ity cuid harassment was to the extent thct she was ieft no other ontion but to comrnit suicids. He submits that eyen in paraaraph No. 30 of the impugned judgment the courr below has admitted ths fact that the o.ccused hos not subjected the deceased to crueity for demo.nd of dowr^/ but yet in an illegoi manner she has been convicted. He further submits th.at entire conviction of the accused/appeiiant is ^..c% •^;:^^ ^.l^'f. ^^' ..^^ftSS ;^1':':"'"'"' based on the letter of the dececeed vide Ex.D-1 but even in the said letter there is no specific a.llegatlon against the accused/appellant for demand of dowry or for cruelty. 6. On the other hand counsel for the State supporMng the impugned judgment and submits tho+ the impjgned judgment i.s in accordance with iow and thers is no Infjrmity jn the same. 7. I haye heord co'.inse! for ths parties and perused the materia! avaiiableon record. As the entire conviction of the appsiiant is based on th« ietter (Ex.D-1) written by ths dscease.d, j~ is better for this court to refer the soid ietter. In this letter, though has pointed out certain gr'ievancss by mentioning that her wopk hos not been iiked by accused persons and she is being subjectes to taunt by ths<c.ccused persons. She has further mentioned in the letter that even the food which she cooks has not been iiked by the accussd per.sons, though she does not keep weii but yet shs has to work for the entire day. Deceased has furTher meritioned 'n this letter that she was always missing her mother and sisters. She has mentioned in the letter that all the time she used to cry ond she wcn'ts to see her mother. She hcs mentioned that she is ecsger to corne to her sarent-^ house. She has also mentionec in this letter' ot leo.st tii! her deiivery she does not wo.nt to stay in h.er motr'imonia! house o.nd she be take-rs by her po.rents. In the entire letter, there ts no aliegation whatsoevsr against th.e accused/appellant in res-pect of demand of dowry or any speclfic ailegQt'on against the ci.ccused/appe.ilarst for subjecting he.r to crueity. Thus, under' no stretch of tasss iKSfe^B imc^inction, accused/appeilant con be convicted on the bcsis of this letter. 9. Dine-sh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), ons of ths vHla'ger has not support'ed the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Dr>. KQinnoi Narayan Sharma (PW-Z^ is ths vi!!aoe doctor and had (iven injection to the deceased immediately before her delivery. Kriparam Sinha (PW-3) - uncle of the deceased ho.s not made any specific allegation against the accused/appe'lant. DashrQthlai Sinha (PW-4) - father of the deceased has proved the letter Ex.D-1, has not made any allegatiori for demand of dowry nor has made specific dlegation against the accused/appsl!omt. PuneetrOTn Sinha (PW-5) - grsndfather of the deceased has though made cer'to.in aliego-i'jons ogo.in.st the accused and other accused psrsons but those aiiegations ore not to th.e exte.nt on which basis the occused/appellant can be convicted. 10. The aforesaid discussion derived from the evidence avaiiable on record does not indicate any specific attegation to ho.ve been made by'any of the witnesses leading thi-s Court to form an opinion that the appeiicmt ever subje-cted her to cruelty to such an extent tho.t the dscsased wos forced to take the extreme step at the cost of her jife. Moreover, entire conviction of th®appellant is based on the Istter (Ex.D-1) written by the deceased in which there Is no ailegation whatsoeyer against the accussd/appeitant in respect of demand of dowr/ or any specific aliegation against her for subiectinQ her the deceased to crueity. Thus. in the fact.s A circumstances of the case, the accused/appeilant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 498-.A of the Indian WiSi: N^s^.ys^ Pena! Code and therefore she is being acquitted for the said cha.rge. Not even o. singie witness has come'forwflrd with th® direct aliegation attractlng the ingredients of abetmsnt o.s defsned under Section 107 IPC which can prompt the judicla! conscience to uphold the conyiction of the o.pps!!ant under ms s' 11. Consequently, the o.ppeo.l is aJSowsd. Impugned Judgfnsnt dated 22.01.1996 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the ch.arges levelted against him. She is on bo.i!. She need not surrender before the court below. Bait bond furnished bv her stand discharQed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^