Rajbabu & Anr vs State Of M.P

2. The deceased, Shanti Bai, daughter of Janak Rani (PW.1) and Gyan Das (PW.2) was married to Rajbabu-appellant No.1 two years prior to the date 2 of occurrence. On 17.7.1988 Shanti Bai set herself on fire in her matrimonial home and she died because of burn injuries received by her. At the time when the occurrence took place the Appellant No.2, Smt. Munnibai (mother-in-law of the deceased) had gone to fetch water from the well. The husband of Appellant No.2, Shri Jagat Bandhu (father-in- law of the deceased), who was acquitted by the trial court, was away to some other place, whereas Appellant No.1 had gone for cutting wood from the forest. Appellant No.1 immediately coming to know about the incident came back and lodged the first information report at police station Bhangarh which was recorded by the Head Constable Narbada Prasad, who was examined as PW.9 during the trial. The said report which was lodged by the appellant No.1 was exhibited during the trial and was marked as Ex. P.16. The deceased was carried to the railway station Karonda for being taken to the Government Hospital at Bina for treatment. The police station Incharge, Mr. Ashok Chourasia (PW.8), also arrived at the railway station and recorded the dying declaration, wherein it was noted that Shanti Bai died in the accidental fire while cooking food in the house. In the said dying declaration the deceased exculpated all the members of her matrimonial home. Immediately thereafter she died at the railway station itself. The police thereafter sent the body for post mortem 3 examination which was conducted and exhibited as Ex. P.20 during the trial. According to the said post mortem report the deceased suffered 90% burns which were found to be ante mortem. The police thereafter started investigation and on completion thereof, submitted a charge-sheet against Rajbabu-appellant No.1, Smt. Munnibai-appellant No. 2, who is mother of appellant No.1 and Jagat Bandhu, father of the appellant No.1 under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. On the basis of the aforesaid charge- sheet, charges were framed against all the three accused-appellants under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC for treating the deceased with cruelty and abetting her to commit suicide as a result of which allegedly she committed suicide.

3. During the course of the trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges against the accused persons. Trial court after hearing the arguments and on appreciation of the evidence on record acquitted accused No.3, the father of the Appellant No.1, whereas an order was passed convicting appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC after holding that offences against both of them are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court thereafter passed an order of sentence, sentencing both the appellants to 4 undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. No fine was imposed. Against the aforesaid judgment both the appellants filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by its judgment on 23rd September, 2002. Being aggrieved by the said judgment this appeal has been filed by the appellants. During the course of the trial they were granted bail. In the present appeal order was passed by this Court enlarging them on bail.

7. The dying declaration was recorded on 17.7.1988 at about 12.45 hrs. by the investigating officer, PW 8 at the railway station from where the deceased was to be taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The incident had taken place at about 10.30 AM. Deceased had stated in the said dying declaration which was recorded in the presence of some of the villagers that while pouring kerosene oil, one end of her sari caught fire as 7 she was cooking food and that in the aforesaid manner she got burnt. It is also stated by her in the said dying declaration that she did not set fire on her own and no body set fire on her and that while preparing meal her sari caught fire accidentally. She has categorically stated in the said dying declaration that no quarrel had taken place and that there was no problem in her matrimonial home. The said statement was read over to her and her thumb impression was put as she could not sign because of the burn injuries received by her.

11. The prosecution has examined the mother of the deceased as PW 1. She had stated in her deposition that her daughter told her that in her in-laws house, her mother-in-law used to ask her to run hand flourmill. She also stated that her son-in-law Rajbabu also used to quarrel with her daughter and used to beat her. She has also stated that her daughter told her that her mother-in-law used to use filthy language for her father and brothers. It is further stated by her that once her husband had gone to bring Shanti Bai, at that time her mother-in-law did not send her rather she was beaten by her in his presence for not cleaning the utensils. Thereafter her husband came back. In her cross examination she stated that her daughter wanted to become educated and wanted to go for employment. Her daughter told her after coming back from the matrimonial home that her 10 husband is not educated and the family is poor for which she had expressed pain. Her daughter told her that her life would be spoiled in that house and on that issue she was very unhappy. It was also stated by her that her daughter never sent any letter from her in-laws house. She further replied in her cross-examination that the deceased never told anything to her relatives and members of the society regarding her troubles because she never wanted to make her life public.

17. On such slender evidence, therefore, we are not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC.

19.In the said statements there is also a mention of an incidents were the deceased had been beaten by her husband. The mother-in-law (appellant No. 2) cannot be held liable for the said act; rather there is evidence on 17 record of PW3 who had stated that appellant No. 2 had once restrained her son. Though in the statement of PW 1 there is mention of one or two incident when the present appellant had beaten the deceased but there appears to be possibility of embellishment. The father of the deceased (PW2), in his statement has not made any statement regarding cruelty being committed on his daughter in her in-laws house. After analyzing the said evidence and the statements made by PW1 and PW3 we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt should be granted to appellant No. 2.

20.We, therefore, set aside the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC passed against the appellant No. 2 and acquit her granting her benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed in so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned. The appeal has abated in so far as appellant No. 1 is concerned. The appellant No. 2 is already on bail. She is released from the terms of her bail bonds.

................................J. (R.V. Raveendran) .................................J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma) New Delhi, July 24, 2008