Case: Sunil Bajaj Vs. State Of M.P

1. The appellant has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2000 passed by the High Court confirming the order of conviction passed under Section 304-B,IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the Trial Court. The appellant was tried for offences under Section 304-B and in the alternative under Section 306,IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge punishable under Section 306,IPC and convicted him under Section 304-B,IPC. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellant married Suman on 19.3.1991 at Saharanpur in U.P. He was asking his wife Suman to bring money from her parents and her parents were giving money to her from time-to-time. In June, 1995, Suman came to Saharanpur and told her mother that the appellant was demanding an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and she further told that the appellant had illegal relations with the girls of doubtful character and used to bring those girls to his house; those girls had beaten her; the appellant was ill-treating and harassing her; he subjected her to cruelty with the result Suman within a period of seven years of marriage committed suicide after burning herself by sprinkling kerosene oil on her on 28.8.1995 in Nanak Complex, New Market, Govindpura at Bhopal. On the information from Dr. Anup Debey about hundred percent burns of Suman Bajaj on telephone, Aishbag Police registered a case and FIR was lodged on 30.8.1995 under Section 304-B,IPC. The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses to prove the case. One defence witness was also examined. The conviction was based upon the evidence of PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 9. PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 are the mother, father and brother of the deceased respectively and PW 9 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body. The appellant pleaded not guilty and his defence was that pecuniary condition of the parents of the deceased was not good; he himself is well off and had advanced money to the father of the deceased on several occasions; he was unable to return the money to the appellant and that he was falsely implicated in the case.

Court's reasoning:
9. As can be seen from this document on which much reliance is placed by both the Courts, there is absolutely nothing to indicate about the demand of dowry and there is not even a whisper about the same. If Suman was pressed by her husband to get money and if that was the cause for her sadness or difficulty, she could not have missed to write about the same, that too having written about the bad work of appellant and his bringing girls to the house. With this evidence on record, it is clearIt is unfortunate that Trial Court did not properly and objectively consider the evidence to reach a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence. It may be also noticed here that the appellant was acquitted for the charge under Section 306,IPC. The High Court, as already stated above, did not re-appreciate the evidence as first Court of Appeal on criminal side and has disposed the appeal in a summary way, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. In the light of what is stated above, in our view, both the Courts committed serious and manifest error in concluding that the appellant was guilty of the offence when the crucial and necessary ingredient that the deceased Suman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by him soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry was not established and also looking to the evidence and circumstances cumulatively. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment is unsustainable as it suffers from infirmity and illegality as indicated above.