The State Of M.P. vs Khlandaram & Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7622 MP

                            1


     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

      SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY

              Criminal Appeal. No.2035/1997

                 State of Madhya Pradesh

                             Vs.

                   Khilandaram and others

____________________________________________________
       Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer counsel for
       the appellant/State.

       Ms. Anita Kaithwas,      learned   counsel    for   the
       respondents.




                     JUDGMENT

(24.11.2021)

This criminal appeal under Section 378(3) of the

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State against the

judgment dated 13.10.1995, passed by Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Sehore, Camp Nasrullaganj, whereby the

trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons.

2. Due to the death of respondent No.1 Khilandram

and respondent No.5 Smt. Samanibai during the pendency

of this appeal, the appeal stands abated against them.

3. As per the prosecution, complainant Narayan

Singh informed the police that his wife left for 'mayaka' on

29.06.1988 at 9.A.M. however, after two days, her burnt

dead body was found lying on the Salkanpur Road. On the

basis of this information, a merg was recorded and

investigation was conducted. The body was sent for the

postmortem, where the doctor has opined that it was a

case of suicide and the death occurred on account of the

burn injuries over the body. After investigation, the charge

sheet was filed before the trial Court. The accused persons

abjured the guilt.

4. The trial Court after considering the fact that the

statements of father and mother of the deceased were

recorded after one month of the incident and that the

parents never complained about any harassment meted out

to their daughter to the police or even to the neighbours or

to the panchayat, has refused to rely on their statement.

The Court has further considered that Harichand (P.W.-1)

and Sheeladevi (P.W.-2), respectively father and mother of

the deceased in their deposition have stated that they were

aware that their son-in-law has done second marriage, as

their daughter was unable to conceive. They have further

stated that after the second marriage of son-in-law, they

never went to the house of their son-in-law, who was living

with both of his wives. It was also admitted by Harichand

(P.W.-1) and Sheeladevi (P.W.-2) that accused/respondents

No.2, 3 and 4 were living separately from their daughter

and son-in-law. The Court has also taken note of the fact

that seizure witnesses namely, Jaipal Singh (P.W.-3),

Ashuram (P.W.-4) and Sharafat Ali have turned hostile and

the IO has not been examined.

5. Though the learned counsel for the

appellant/State has argued that the deceased committed

suicide for the reason that she was harassed and called

names for being not able to give birth to a child, however,

the same would not amount to abetment to suicide.

Moreover, this allegation said to be made against the

husband, who has already expired during the trial.

6. No independent witness has been examined in

the matter to show that the deceased was abused,

harassed or called names by the respondents in any

manner.

7. On due consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence on record, I find that the trial Court

has not committed any illegality or perversity in acquitting

the respondents. The appeal being meritless is accordingly

dismissed.

8. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds

stand discharged.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT. GEETHA NAIR gn 2021.11.26 17:10:55 +05'30'