^S^^^^^SS^K^S^ tV- 'iy^ ^- ^ .... „ r Qi IN THE HI8H COURT OF LrUDICATURE AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.-933 ,/l999. (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374^2^ 'OV CRIMINAL PROC3DURE CODS,19731 Appellant: \si1 ^^ ^^ .^•^ .-.s-ff-" 1 .-As ';!<«* ^.u-" Respondent: 3URESH MISHRA, ..S/o Shri P.P. Mishra," aged about 35 years» R/o vlllage- Kayaix Khokhlj., Police station- Bhatapara(Orarain), District, Raipur (M.P.). J/VersUs// STATE' OF MADHYA PR.WE.3H. Through- Police Station-Bhgtapara(Gramin) District, Raipur (M.P.)* APPEAL UI'iDER SECTION 374 (2Q OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.1973.. K!i IIK'lii m 1-II6H CONRTOPGHHA'T'T'ISSARJ-tArBa.ASPUR e Bench : Hon'ble Criminci 'iAoBeal No, $39 of AftPEI.lANT RgSPONDENT Suresh Mishra Versus State of;: Madhyo Pr'adesh fnow - Chhattisgarh) ; Shri V. K. Sharma^couhsel for theappe]t<mt. Shri U.K.S. Chcinctel^-pGnel Lawyer for the State. CRIMINAi..XPPEAl;UNE>ERSECTION374(2y©FTHECO&EOF E (07.01.2010) This appeai is directed (Mflinst the impugned jydgnient^ ddted ,24.3.1999 passed .by Seeond Additional'.Sessions.Ji.jdge,. .Balodol:.gQzw,'.^!stt'|c1'^Ra!j3urwm .Sessioris' "R'jar.Mcfc .23,2ytSff7' ||(^ieting|1|het<a;euss<la^peH<»||fop^ Bfil:S^,:s:aS- B i^^^;'S..S.;';"^^ .ll"'!''.'.1":' • -; W^^'^O^^sf^he:'lMi(m:'PeneS'C{ide cM.'sentencw^ i-ihctergo ^rigQr-Qus imprisonment for 10 years md pay ^fine of ,Rs.2,OOQ:!u/s 306, in default of .paymsnt of-finetpfurthsp undergo simple Tmpr'lsonmeRt o^one year. 2. The prosecution story^Jn rujtsheil is thfft'o writtenreport^ datecl; 21.1.1997 (Ex.P^loelged^ Tr'ipdthi' (PW-10), fathei-' of:^he deceased Sulbha, F,IJ%^ix.P-7):' wdsregister^on 21.1.1997 .(^insttheQgpeiIan^acci^ddlegi^ "3:-'-'- '.. . '.. :.'.•-'.: '/• '.' •••.''•.;• :'::."^:."":;:''-:'•;,..;" •...: "l.:..:^-:::." ."'; in it thcrf on 15.1.1997^ hiscl'aigh't'erlSuihha Gomm'tted st|TC!3e, by^ consumingpoison'Ghd^fhersby.tBeiGppelJm ,1 the offenGeuniier^Seet:io :SOS^Is€ eiInslianPenat:G^<}e./!^ IBISSI'isMS's't. A'S; BMMJli-1 »»l:li.::".:i w III I! 3;:, So as to hold the acGused^pReilant guilty.proseeutisriihas examined as many as 13. witnesses. Stfftemen* of the accused/appe!lant was aiso recorded under Seetion 313 of the- Code of Crimind Procedure in which he denied ths charge !eve!ed against him and pleaded his innocence and fojse implication in the case. ' . • : : : • : , 4. After hedring learhed counsej for the parfies the tridj Court has conyicted and sentenced the accused/aDgaetldnt for the tf offencement'oneddboye, . ' • Counse! for the appeilant submits that eyen if the entire prosecution ca.se is taken as it is, the Qffence under Sectiori 306 IPC is not made out because the basis ingredients of'Section 306 IPC inparticular Section 107 IPCo.re notattr'actedinthepresent case. He further submits that none of the witnssses .incfi.icling] iodger^of:'t|e;.F:.I.fe te4^Ramy<:»^^T^ iias ;:said •arrytfeirtg o^am^-ytl'ie'cppelicOTt.^^ 9 marriage pf the' dppeltcmt .was solemnized with the dsceased sometlme in the year 1986 ond out of the wedlock, thecouple WGS blessed with two sssuss, however,1he deceased was.not;keeping good healt+i, as o. result of which she GdmmJttsd suicide, l-1e aiso submita that the appej'ant has besn co"victed;,so!sly on the Bosjs of the surmises dnd conjectures and.the same is not .per'mjssibje under'tfielaw: ::: :. .. :.: 1'' .:,:-.. 1:..'. ::, - .^ 6. On the other hand, it has been drgued. by.+Re fearned counsel for the State/respQndeht tKSt there was nq reaSon^Nr' ^he deceased toj Goramit suicideABut.foE^the ';fdct ^tiiat ,:s^jei^g^ .^ubjected tocFuet+y.by'i'h&.apjselSctfit/Qccysed.,; ^ ; ^ ^ -7. I have-heapdi.tearnsd caunsel fop the parties at tength. drid perused tlie,mGter°ia!avai!abte on recor'd including the judgment impugned. ' . ! ! ' ' ' ' ' . 8. From the eyidenGe- available on record, it is clea." that mdrriage of the deceagsd was so'lemnized witlrthe dppellant sometime in the year-1986 snd they were !iying happi!y. Thoug h in the writteh report- (Fx.P-6)and FIR (Ex.P-7) ai!egations have been !fl. •••''• •••••• . . .. '••':". made by Ramyash TFipathi (PW-10) against the appeilant to the effect that her daughter was subjected to cruelty byt. in the court statement the said witness has not stated anything against the appellant and was deciared hostile. Qut of the IS.witnesses none had deposed anything agairist the appeNant. Even the relatiyes of fhe deceased namely Ramyash Trjpathi '(PW-IO), father of the deceased <& Smt. Saroj Tripathi (PW-12), mother of the deeeased have not deposed anything.agdinst the appellant and Wer'e declqred hQsfile. Ukewise neighbaps have a!so not supported the prbsecution case. After going through t-he e.ntire eyidence and the record, I do not anything against the appeilcnt/accused. 9. Keeping in view the ingredients of /Sections 306 and '107 IPC, svidence .as adduced by^ths prosecution, I Gm of the consideped view that the iogredients of 'abetment' are fotaiiy absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPG., An offence under Section 306 IPC wou Id s+and. only if thepe is an 'abetment' fdr the comnrission of the crme. Accordingiy, iri^th& present case offence under Sectipn-306 IPC Is not naays puf against-the appellant/accused. - ' , 11?,. mKsn :'^mi 1^^^^^^^^^^^^^^®1?^&; &/- 10. In the result, the criminal^appeaj sycceeds and is ailowed. The impugned judgment of the Court below convicting 6nd sentencing theappellarit/accused:underSection 306 of thelndiao Penal Code is set aside. The appellant/accuised is.aeqyitTed'of tfte chargs under SeGtion 306 sf: 'the Indian Psnai' ^^£.Qde. Appeljant/acGused is report-ed' to,.be on bai!. His baii feonds dre i discharged. Fine,if paid, be refunded. . _^ ^ g^/. 1 Pritinker Diwaker ; ! Judge ,'11, I w: