» 4; !f ^ ^^ II E HIGH_CaJRT_W JUDICASJREOFE.P, ATJABAIHJR. SCC.X, CrimiDal ^peal Ho.^^^-'of 1996. PPELLANI ^5SfJ^I5~"' - i'niiili1 I """CF0000060653 MGTILAL OEVANGAN, soo o£ Jagdi^^ Deva DgaD, aged about 28 yegrs, Resident of Champa, District BILASPUR, (M.P.). RESPONDENT VISRSUS STATE OF MADHIA PRADESH. .A\ -_A^ CRIMINAI^APP.EAL V NDER SECS'IQN 574 Gr_ffil CODE OF CRIKI1AL PROCEKJ . @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1662 of 1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Motilal Devangan State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri B.P. Gupta counsel for appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (12.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.9.1996 passed by Additjonal Special Judge, Janjgir, in Sessions Trial No. 314/1992 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of merg intimation (Ex. P-12) dated 2.6.1992 FIR (Ex. P-14) was registered on 5.6.1992 against the accused/appellant, his father Jagdish and mother Bachan Bai for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. On the basis of FIR investigation was done by the police and the charge sheet was filed against them under Section 304-B/34 IPC. At the time of framing of charge, offence under Section 498-A IPC was alsoadded. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Shankarlal (DW-1) was also examined by the defence in support of its case. 2— ^^J© 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court hasacquitted accused Jagdish and Bachan Bai of all the charges levelled against them. Accused/appellant has also been acquitted by thecourt below of the charge under Section 304-B IPC but has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-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 all the allegations made against the accused/appellant are omnibus in nature and nothing specific has been stated against him by any of the witnesses. According to him, when on the same piece of evidence the other accused persons have been acquitted by the court below, the accused/appellant should also have been awarded acquittal. He submits that looking to the allegations made against the appellant, ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not attracted to the same. He submits that even the mother and father of the deceased namely Jyotilal (PW-1) and Apania Bai (PW-6) have not made any specific allegation against the present appellant. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned. 8. Jyotilal (PW-1) - the father of the deceased has stated in his evidence that on 1.6.1992 the accused/appellant had come to his house and informed him that some dispute was going on in his house and no one had taken food for last three days, on which he told him that he would come to his house and pacify the matter. Thereafter, according to this witness, the accused/appellant went back to his house and on the next day his cousin came to him and informed that his daughter i.e. the deceased had been burnt. Thereafter, this witness went to the house of the accused/appellant where he came to know that she was shifted to the hospital and 1 when he went to the hospital, she was found dead. This witness has | however stated that relations between his daughter and the accused persons were good. According to him, when his daughter had come to his house, she had informed him that as fan, watch and TV was not given to the accused persons they were creating troubles to her and also used to abuse her intolerably. He has stated on 1.6.1992 -3— the accused/appellant had visited him in a drunken condition and informed him that for three days he was living on liquor. Darasram (PW-2) - the co-brother of the accused/appellant has stated that the deceased had informed his wife that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her for TV, fan and watch. Except this, he has not stated anything specific against the accused/appellant. Apania Bai (PW-6) - mother of the deceased has stated that one year before the death of her daughter (the deceased), she had come to her house and informed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to abuse her saying that she had brought less dowry. However, no allegation hasbeen made by this witness against the present appellant. Assistant Sub Inspector - Lalji Shukla (PW-12) who had registered the FIR and partly investigated the matter has supported the case of the prosecution. 9. Having gone through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, this Court could not lay hand on anything showing that the accused/appellant has ever subjected the deceased to cruelty which could have driven her to take such an extreme step of suicide. Moreover, father of the deceased has categorically stated that the relations between her daughter and the accused persons were good. Though, her mother has stated that she was informed by her daughter to have been harassed by her mother-in-law and father-in- law for bringing less dowry, not even a single allegation has been made against the accused/appellant. Thus in the absence of any pin-pointed material showing the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, it appears to be a difficult task to uphold the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 498-A IPC. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Court below has not given a thoughtful consideration while appreciating the evidence available on record. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned dated 17.9.1996 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Appellant is alreadyjsrL bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^T