IGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Division Bench Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'bie Shri Raieshwar La! Jhanwar. JJ. Crjnnnai Appeal No.969 of 1991 State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) versus Ramsai and others JUDGMENT FOR GONSIDERATIQN Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 1:»!: Hon'bie Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar. J.: 5 ^y^c-e^ Sd/- R.L. Jhan\war Judge ,-y-i l.'i -^ POST FOR tfc -6-2009 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge •lll.<] •p.-g; w-te:-: •:"'J;1 ^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR Diy[sion Bench Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'bie Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar. JJ. i-aitga ADpeliant Criminai Appeal No.969 of 1991 State of Chhattisgarh) Pradesh (now 1. Ramsai, S/o Pirohit Panlka, age 20 years, 2. Savitri Bai, W/o Ramviias, age 19 years, 3. Mithubai, W/t> Pirohit, age 44 years, 4. Sanju Bai, W/o Mahsai Panika, ags 30 5. Pirohit Panika, S/o Antu Panika, age 50 years, All residents of Bhalnadafai Haldibadi. P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Surguja CnminaLAppealynder Section 378(1) oftheCode ofCriminal Procedure, 1S73 fitta'iii Prssent: Shri N.Naha Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State/appeliant. Shri H.S.Ahiuwalia, counssl for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered on this It^- day of June,2009) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Diiip Raosahet? Deshmukh, J.: T! This appeai by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises'out of Vfye judgment dated 18-4-1991 delivered in Sessions Trial No.337/1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Surgyja, whereby the respondents 1 '^ rmW'i Ji!.!)<li -liCTl.l..,, •ssf-r No.1 to 5 were acquitted of the charge under Sertions 498A, 306 and 304Bofthel.P.C. (2) The appeal insofar as it relates to respondent No.3 Mithubai and respondent No.SPiroRit has abated on aceount oftheir death. (3) !t is not disputed that on 12-3-1989 Mst. Dhanraso Bai died due to suicidal hanging in her matrimonial home at Bhainsadafai, Haldibadi, Chirmiri. Respondent No.1 Ramsai is the husband and respondent No.2 Savitri Baiand respondent No.4 Sanju Bai are the sisters-in-iaw of the deceased. It is also not disputed that on 12-3- 1989 Noharsai P.W.-1 father of the deceased had visited the house of resDondent No.1 Ramsai for taking Dhanraso to her maternal home in Katkona Colliery, P.S. Patna, District Surguja. Admittedly, suicidal death of Dhanraso had occurred within 7 years of her mamage with Ramsai the respondent No.1 . (4) Prosecution story in short is that Ramsai frequently asked Dhanraso to demand a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her parents and used to treat her with cruelty. On 11-3-1989 Noharsai P.W.-1 accompanied by his wife Dashmat and daughter Vimla P.W.-6 had sone to Bhainsadafai, Chirmiri to bring Dhanraso to her maternal home and had stayed there for the night. On 12-3-1989, the respondenfe insulted Dhanraso in presence of vUlagers and snatched her nasal ornament and necktace and insisted that before leaving the matrimonial house Dhanraso should ?ign a blank paper. In this situation, Noharsai P.W.-1, his wife and daughter Vimla P.W.-6 ieft Dhanraso at her matrimonial home and on their return stayed in the lliifl ^^;!.ii;^s^ .';.^6S5i'"I'"«—»;'-5T]-i1 :.!".a m: house of Bhaiyalal P.W.-2, a near relative. At about 7 P.M. on receiving information that Dhanraso had died, they went to Bhainsadafai and saw the dead body of Dhanraso lying inside the house. Merg intimation Ey.P-8 was given by Mansai at P.S. Chirmiri. Inquest was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Dr. R.R. Gajbhiye P.W.-7 conducted the autopsy on 13-3-1989 at 2:35 P.IVI. and found ligature mark between thyroid carUlage, knot impression on the right side of neck below the ear and the tongue stightly protruded between the teeth. Trachea and lungs were congested. He opined that death was due to asphyxia which could be due to suicidal hanging. On 14-3- 1989 Noharsai P.W.-1 lodged a typed report Ex.P-1 before the S.D.O. (Police), Baikunthpur, Surguja. After completion of investigation the respondents were prosecuted and were charged under Sections 306, 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. The respondents abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. Ths prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The resoondents examined Mohanram D.W.-1 and Aitwardas D.W.-2. Respondent No.1 Ramsai and respondent No.5 Pirohit also testified as defence witnesses. (5) On appreciation of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the testimony of Noharsai P.W.-1 and Vimla P.W.-6 rsiating to cruelty inflicted by the respondents on Dhanraso on 12-3- 1989 wholly unworthy of credit and acquitted the respondents of all charges. (6) We have heard Shri N.Naha Roy, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant and Shri H.S.Ahluwalia,.learned counsel for the respondents and have aiso perused the |record. !l»<l:l*:il mi '""T^-^- 1""—':~"'-2.>M!»8-16> (7) Dashmat Bai mother of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution. The testimony of Noharsai P.W.-1 in para 11 that the Nasal Khunti (Ornament) was snatehed by the sisters-in-iaw of the deceased resulting in bleeding and cutting of the nose of the deceased is rendered false since no such injury was found by Dr. R.R.Gajbhiye P.W.-7 during autopsy on the body of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that this fact also does not find place even in the report Ex.P-1. In para 12, Noharsai P.W.-1 had admitted that independent neighbours had seen the respondents snatching the omaments worn by Dhanraso while she was accompanying him to the maternal home. However, no such independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The testimony of Noharsai P.W.-1 in para 4 that while Dhanraso had accompanied him for some distance the respondents came and dragged her to their house is also rendered unworthy of any credit as this material fact also does not find place in the typed report Ex.P-1. In para 13 of his testimony it also franspires that at the time of inquest no such fact was droulged by Noharsai P.W.-1 to the Panchas. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was thus justified in not placing any reliance on his testimony. (8) An important fact which also beiies the presence of Vimla P.W.-6^at,the place of occurrence is that in the report Ex.P-1 Vimla P.W.-6 is not stated to ha^e accompanied her father Noharsai to Bhainsadafai. The testimony of Vimla P.W.-6 in para 5 that the respondents had snatehed the ear rings of Dhanraso thereby cutting her ear is rendered unworthy of credit beCause no such injury was -llij inn r ir' g 6, •eBpnf suoissss IBUosjppv peu.iE!e| si|i ^q psssed leninboe io lueuiBpnf ©4} iflm sj9.)J9}U! 0} punoj& lueioiyns jo P!|BA Aue puy }ou op SM ')|ns9j e sy •souep.iAS jo lesiejddeej uo Maj/t }USJSJ;(IP e aijBtO} uoseej ou si / '" aj9i|t pue pstusui ||SM snq} si siuepuodssj 94} y> jBnjntiav 'upsjo Aue ys AiitJOMun AIIO^M SBM SSSI.-S'SI. uo s^uspuodsej 941 Aq psnii-uLyoo Atisnjo j.o S}OB ei|} 0} BUIIBISJ 9-"AA'd BIUJIA pue l.-'M'd lesjeyoN p souepiAe eifl }EI|I P|SL| AjiyBu AijAipsfqo inw uojinoasojd 94; Aq ps| aouepjAS si|i Buyapisuoa jsye sey eBpnp suoissss IBUOijippv peujes) sqi {84} uoiuido psjepisuoo 94} jo snij( eje e^A (oi.) •}!psjo jo AyyoMun (.'OJM ^uspuodssj SL[} Aq -/000'0i.'sa ^o pueuiep 34} BuipjeSsj uo!te63||e 04} sjapuej OSJE Aiiems jo pe Aue jo -/000'01.'sy •1°^ puetuep Aue BuipjeSej jBsiuey IBJM osejueqa )o sBeujBiu 84} jeye jeeA euo jo poued sy) Buunp (.-•M'd lesjeyojM Aq psBpo) SBM }jode.i ou ie4} v>ei 341 'Z'Wd [BieAieyg 01 suies syt ©IBJJBU01 pei.iej SAey }ou p|no/v\ t-'AA'd !esjei|ON 'peuaddeq SAB^ p]noM tuspioui yons Aue i\ •siuepuodssj eijt ^q S}usuieujo ^o Buiqoieus 94} jo osaiue^a uo s}U9puodssj SLji Aq Atjsnjo p pe Aue inoqe lunj 01 SIGJJBU iou pi.p leiuysea 9^ Sj4 JO t-'M'd iBsje^ON }G4t ^ ejed ui SJBSASJ A||eouoB9}eo Auotunse} siij 'jaASMOH •le^epesuieyg ui issuiey i.-ONiuspuodsejjo ssnoi) eqi LUOJ^ Buiujnisj 8|j4M p8Ae}s pey S^IM siq pue (.-•M'd !BSjeqo|M ssnoy esoifvn }B pesesoap et|} ^o 3M}B|8J JBSU e si z-'AA'd IBjeAeyg (g) •Buy 9 oi)se|d e BuueeM sq 0} puno^ SBM osejueqa isenbui Bu.unp pue Asdo^ne Buunp osejueqa uo puno^ llllit ai'tite i< ;fr •^"»li>>liiiSffs;»tiw '^ssSESSi'swwWWSiWaisu—^ 6 (11) In the result, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. ___ —__--_-—_ Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb DeshmuKh Judge Sd/" R.L. Jhanwar Judge •i ! -Q nggii '^:-. 1 K&