r 93.5mmL Nogg‘? _0F 1990. . m;n.:.xam; syn) mgamm’fkéa raMutZ—hiya.’ 1 ; é zrw 2. Shab'adb‘éi wife of Umediram Sahu age' 4 years,/ Umaz'da E S . Tumgaon LANTS ) 009. n.t . d g) Both R/o Vilage's Disit. Raipur_(i@) VERSUS t ate of Liadhya ?ra<3.esh . ‘.ApPALs.a74(2) 0? THE cggag. ggE_g/ *5 g oiwlgq: mg: / bnNfEmu' .I. Afar iive years. \rw U/s . soé m . O. l . k??hL {ELI JATL R _@ {2%) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR («x , x i ‘ Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellants. " Shri Ajit Singh, PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ‘ J U D G M E N T (08.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.8.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No. 205/1987 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing themto undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. By the’same judgment accused Umedi Ram has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of the deceased Kumari Bai with accused/appellants Maniram was performed three years prior to the date of incident ifé. 25/26.10.1986 when the deceased committed suicide by jumping in to the well. Merg intimation (Ex.P-4) was given by A.S.l. Babulal (PW—10) and N based on that FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against three accused 1 persons namely Maniram, Shabadbai and Umedi Ram on 19.11.1986. \ 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false g } (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 1990. A‘ APPELLANTS - Mani Ram and another. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh). implication in the case. This apart, four witnesses also examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convioted and sentenced the accused / appellants for the offence as mentioned above. 5.‘ Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. ‘ V .Counsel for the accu’sed/appellants submits that unfortunately asthe deceased was not having any issue even after four years of her marriage, she used to be gripped in tension and depression. According to him, for her being in depression she was provided medical treatment by.a village doctor. He further submits that Punit Ram (PW-1), the father of the deceased, Sumitra Bai (PW-3), the mother of the deceased, Shivdas (PW—12) and Bise Lal (PW—13) have stated in their evidence that the accused/appellants used to have quarrel with the deceased but even if the entire evidence of these witnesses is taken as it is, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant. He submits that for convicting the accused u/s 306 IPC the prosecution has to prove that the harassment meted out to the deceased was to such an extent that the deceased had no other option but to take such a drastic step to‘end her life by committing suicide. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are strictly in accordance with law and no interference with the same is desirable. 8. Punit Ram (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that when after one year from the date of her marriage the deceased did not conceive, the accused/appellants had started torturing her and: branding her as a barren and saying that all the expenses incurred , in the marriage had gone waste. He has further stated that there was a demand made by the accused/appellants for Rs. 6-7 ‘ thousand from the deceased as dowry. However, this witness has , T, Q as“? ...3_‘ admitted that in his police statement he has not made any averment which he has made in the Court. He has further stated that Rs. 6—7 thousand were demanded towards the marriage expensesqHe has aiso stated that the deceased was residing in his colony itseif and he used to visit the accused persons frequently but the deceased had not informed him about the alleged cruelty at the hands of the accused persons. This witness has stated that even on the date of incident he had met the deceased and at that time 4-5 other persons were also there but she had not disclosed anything to him regarding her‘subjection to cruelty by accused/appellants. He has also stated that after Tija festival when his son had gone to leave the deceased at her matrimonial house, the respondents/accused had offered him food. Almost similar statement has been made by mother of the deceased namely Sumitra Bai (PW-3) and brother of the deceased namely Krishna Kumar (PW—5). These witnesses have also not deposed anything special against the accused/appellants. Shivdas (PW—12), the neighbour of the deceased has stated that sometimes the deceased and her husband used to have quarrel and one occasion her husband had said that he would not keep the deceased and asked her to go out of his house This witness has however stated In paragraph 8 of his statement that on the date of moldent he had heard the deceased crying Biselal (PW-13) another ~ neighbour of the deceased has stated in his eVIdence that on the date of InCIdent and 15 days prior to that he had heard the cries of the deceased He has however stated that he has no Idea as to why she was crying. Statements of these Witnesses were however recorded 27 days after the incident. 9. From the aforesaid factual discussion it is clear that none of the witnesses has stated anything specifically in respect of the ; allegations of cruelty which prompted the deceased to go for suicide. lf the entire allegation is seen in the light of abetment defined under l Section 107 IPC, nothing to be termed as instigation or abetment to do a particular thing is visible putting the provisions of section 107 into motion. Even the parents and brother of the deceased have not .——£(_ stated anything pin pointedly which could lead the judicial mind to affirm the conviction recorded by the Court below. Accordingiy, this Court finds it difficult to be in agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below. ' 10. As a result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Accused/appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. They be freed at once if not required in any other case. Sd/- Pritinker DiWaker Judge .V‘