^n^T^T^w ^SIT ^TT^T *^?NT 3^'^TRT^^', ^Tfly^l^, isl01'H^< ^ITO^iT gh^l* •^ 3:irii?r'c[5?^? (lic<?lc<<^) ^nw^^r^r^r CRIMINAL WPEAL N01796/2000 APPELLANTS Vs RESPONDENT Present: Miss SangeetQ Mishra, Advoci c»)i<4(<n<iii HH<?ff '^,fe%r <Fsi^s< '^'^fl^T^n^f 1. Dayawati, widow of Konds alias Vishwanath ^ond, aged 50 years. 2.1 bukalha alias Bhuru, son of Vishwanori-h 6ond, aged 22 years. B^t-h residents of Village Mohbhatta, P.$* Bhatapwa (Kural), District Raipur (4P-) St4+€ of M.P. through the Police St4tion, Bhatapara (Rural), District Raibur (M.P.) rte for the appelSants. Mr. N.K. Mehta, Panel Lawy'er ^or the re^pondent-State. Thfe appeal under Sec^ion 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the jucSgment of convid'ion a^id order of sentence dated 21 January, 1999 passed in Sessions TrialNo. 158/95 whereby Isarnsd l^ Additional Sessiong Judge/ Bdoda Ba^ar, Digtrict Rdpur has convicted the appejbnts under Section 30^/34 of the IPC and sentenced each of ORAL JUD6 MENT (301 Per Dhirendra Mtshra. J; August, 2007) Heard. XI.HC—78 <5-^ "41^1^-^, y>Ti1'^|(S, fsj^l-f-l^ Nl^ldl sh^lcb ^ 200 3:H^¥r^T'^T^ n8TT ^r^i »?+iicb 3H^?T X^R (4c<lil^<^) ^^ffW^fina^r +hem to unde^O R.I. fut' 10 default of payment of fine to The case of ths pros< wos marriecS to appetlant No. of inddent i.e. 5.5.1994 wh< herself ablaze aft'er pourin< the mother-in-law of the d< ysed to torl-ure the deceas^, was not altowed to !ivc and Bhotapara hospital on the dafe hospita! Sukhbai was alreac Ex.P-1 gave information P€( House Officer, Police 5tcit|i information, merg intimoti< Thakur (PW-1) & Dr. R.S. T^ body of deceased and submi-) After completion of the Court of Jydidal M| committat the same wos rec^ who framed the eherge ut| appelSants, During trsal thereafter the statement| ^i<if<yi<i)Ti jTO^f ^'felzt TfS»i^R '^3?ifOT3:?T^rr ^ears and to pay a finc of R^,5,000/-, in [furt-her undergo R.I. for 1 month. ifcution, in brief, is that deeeased Sukhbai ,^-DukaSha some l? years before the date ^n Sukhbai committed suicide by setting kerosene on her body. Appeiiant No.l is jceased. It is ajleged that the appellants !, did not provide her meals and even she ileep with her husband. She was taken to of incident, however, when they reached |y dead. Dr. Vasudeo Thakur (PW-l) vide larding deoth of Sukhbai to the Stotion ion Bhatapara and on the basis of thot In of Ex.P-3 wos recorded. Dr. Vasudeo ^ari (PW-4) conducteci postmori-em on the t-ed the repoH- of Ex.P-2. |h€irivestigafion, charge sheet was filed in sgistrote First Class, Raipur and after ived by learned Additional Sessions Judge, »der Section 306 of the IPC against the ^itnesses have been examined and of accused persons was recorded under ^T^r^rf?^ WT^TT^T 9h^Jch 7^ "41^1^1^, yiTfl'y^Ks, [s<<?l>iy^< ^l<4dl (bNJcb -^ 200 3TT^?T XRW (^f^^) ?^iTW?Tfen 3?n^r 5eet{on313 of Cr.P.C. wherei appearing agQinst them and However, iearned Additional 5 the appellonts as mentioned hei] br. Vasudeo Thakur (P| cr»i^f<rt<i1l ^w^S ^ ft^ Tf^R^R ^^fRFTW^r ^ they have denied the circumstances |)lead@d innocence & false implication. ^ssions Judge convicted ©ndsentenced }em above. 1|W-1) <& br. R.S. Tiwari (PW-4) have conducted postmortem and pr^pared the postmort'em report of Ex.P-2 wherein they have mentioned burn injuries and cause of her burn injurie's. Ho^ever, no op dcath. Conviction of the app^ Ithat deceased Sukhbai sustained 95% yeath shock GS a re^ult of excessive nion has been given regording nature of llants i§ bascd on the drcurrsstantia! cvidence and the circumstance^ relied upon by the trial court- are that the mGrriage of deceased w^s soSemnized with the appelbnt No.2 before l^ years of the incid< body was found and particular| and there is no smelj of kerol deceased did not sustain any bj circumstances have been takel wa^ in fact set on fire while ^l fent; the circumstances under which the |y burn cot, burn clotheg etc were found ^ene eniGnating from the dead body and ^irn injury ovcr her fingers. A 11 the above to be a circumstance that the deceased he wos sleepi'ng and therefore, her dcoith has drawn a presumption of al +- is not accidental and with thlssc observations the learned trial court betment of guicide under Section 113 (A) GRPRj— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000 ~ 3:5^T •^l^lc?')'^, ^xfl^^KS, ls)(YI>l'Mld,< *41Ndl sb*<(cb' -^ 200 an^r xy^p (^f^^) ^n^r^ f<riich ^^T 3TT^T sb^icb '; ^-^ 0-fl T €4 ^^TOT TTltn 37I^T pugrjedjudgment. e^ thle r^c asi d4serv€S gt1& estosblish thc Evidence Act and according^ |ction 306 ofthe IPC bythe imj Learncd counsel for the app^ Sdence available ars record to deceased to commit suicide/as r^cord to show that the appellants |a result of which ghe committed si| drjcwn by the trid court is witho^it to be set aside. On the other hanc!, jearne^ sported the impugned Judgment. I have hcard learned counsell e^idence avGJlab!e on record includindthe The deceased died QS a resuitl |ie prosecution exQmined Shyarfiratan L^khuram (PW-7) i& Lakhan LaJ Vernila sllatemient of thege ^itnesses it is evlident supported the case of the (Gmined by the prosecution after t^eir cross-examination the prosec^tion ar|y evidence of abetment. On the c4t€goricaf{y stated that the decea^ hijive <=r>i^f<n<flTi 'Wl^f ^* fi^ <Fii^|< '^^tRFTSTT^T convicted theappeilants under sjlants submits that there is no that the appeilants' abetted Ithere is no evidence ovdlabje on 'eated the deceased with cruelty sicide. Therefore, the presumption any foundation and the same Pane! Lawyer for the State for the parties and perused the inipugned judgment. af burn injuries is not in d{gpute. (PW-5), Barsan (PW-6), ^W-8) and from perusai of the that none ofthcse witnesses pr^secution. They have been cross" )@ing dechred hostile but even in has not bcen ablc to adduce <{ontrary, the above witnesses have sed had cordial relots'ons with h@r GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 5Q-.000.' 75ST ^l'qi^-q, ^ITfiy^KS, fs)<r!l|^^< Nl^dl sb^lcb •^ 200 a^?r 'q^R (^f^^) ^TT^T^T ^icb ^T^T^TR^T $h^J<=b '^TTW ^f^a 371^1 in-laws and there was no comj^iaint of any torTure or any quarrel bet^ecn them. The triai court h^ aiso observed this in the impugned judgment, however, relying upon mentjoned in the foregoing para^raphs of this Judgment, and thereby drawing presumption under Sect'| appetiants have been convid'ed sentenced, as mentioned above. The above judgment of prcsumption dra^n by the tria| be altowed and the same is allow c^l^<n<fll 'HFI^f "^ 1^T3t' iP^i^K ^3TRrq3TT^T the circumstances, ^hich have been on 113 (A) of the Evsdence Act, the ynder Section 306 of the IPC and the trial court is perver^e, the court under Sed-ion il3(A) of the Evidence Act that the appeljar^s abetted th@ deceased to commit suicide is without any basis an|d the same is eontrary to the law, therefore, the same cannot be SL|stained. Inthe result, the appeal pfeferred bythe appeKants deserved to d. Conviction of the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC and septence imposed under that section is hereby set aside. The appellan'f be set at liberty forthwith/ if not required in any other case. Sd/- Dhirendra IVIishra Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.000.'