Pradeep Kumar Patel vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6357 MP

                                         Cr.A. No. 892/1998
                                1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                         JABALPUR
  BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.892/1998

Between:-
     PRADEEP KUMAR PATEL,
     S/O HIRALAL PATEL,
     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
     R/O KHAIRA, POLICE STATION LAUR
     DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....APPELLANT

     (By Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri
     Mayank Sharma, Advocate )

     AND

     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,

                                              .....RESPONDENT

     (By Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer)


     Arguments heard on     : 06.01.2022
     Order delivered on       28.04.2022
                                             Cr.A. No. 892/1998
                                   2

                         JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 24.03.1998 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa (M.P.) in S.T. No.158/1996, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced only under Section 304-B of I.P.C. to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that Lalita (deceased) was married to the accused/appellant in 1990. After marriage she was harassed on account of demand of dowry (Rajdoot Motor cycle). She died under unnatural circumstances on 01.06.1996 at around 2.00 P.M. due to burn injuries. This incident was reported at Police Station Laur at 6.45 P.M by Narbada Patel (elder brother-in- law of deceased) that Pradeep Patel's wife has died at 2.00 P.M. due to burn injuries. On the basis of which merg was recorded. During investigation, panchnama was prepared and body of deceased was sent for postmortem. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ramanuj Sharma (P.W.-2), who opined that deceased died due to 100% burn injuries. FIR was registered on 04.06.1996 at Crime No.68/1996 for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and the accused was arrested.

Cr.A. No. 892/1998

3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. After the matter was committed before the competent court, the prosecution led evidence and examined in all 7 witnesses to substantiate the allegations.

4. The accused in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement denied the allegations made against him. It was stated that a day prior to the incident, he had gone to his sister's house, where he received the information regarding the death of his wife, however, no evidence in this regard has been produced by him.

5. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record came to hold that death of deceased was homicidal and occurred within seven years of marriage for the reason of harassment and demand for dowry. Since the Court below opined that the death of Lalita (deceased) had taken place within seven years of her marriage, it applied the presumption mentioned in Section 304-B of I,P.C. and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforestated.

6. It it contended by Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that there was no material on record regarding demand of dowry. He further contended that the offence under Section 304-B of I.PC. is not made out as the Cr.A. No. 892/1998

marriage took place in the year 1988 and the incident happened in the year 1996, i.e., after eight years of the marriage. He produced the lagan patrika (Ex. D-5) which contains the description that marriage was held on 18.06.1988.

7. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the State, the Court below has committed no error in convicting the appellant in view of sufficient evidence of Prabhunath (P.W.-1), Ramvati (P.W.-4) and R.C. Nishad (P.W. -7).

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Under Section 304-B of I.P.C., the dowry death is punishable if it occurs within seven years of the marriage, But no such period is mentioned in Section 498-A of I.P.C. and the husband and/or his relatives would be liable for subjecting the woman to cruelty any time after marriage.

10. Prabhunath (P.W.-1), Ramvati (P.W.-4), Rammilan (P.W.-5) and Kunjbihari (P.W.-6) in their testimony had stated that deceased told them about the torture and harassment on account of demand of Rajdoot motor cycle. Prabhunath (P.W.-1) has stated that when he went to attend a marriage on 30.05.1996, had met his Cr.A. No. 892/1998

daughter, who cried and told him that she was beaten and tortured by the accused.

10. A perusal of the statement of P.W.-1 Prabhunath (father), P.W.-4 Ramvati, P.W.-5 Rammilan, P.W.-6 Kunjbihari shows that all these prosecution witnesses have stated that marriage of Laita and Pradeep had taken place in 1990, i.e., 6 years before the death of the deceased. Though they have admitted that they do not remember the exact date of marriage. In the present case no marriage card was produced, however, the evidence of P.W.-1 Prabhunath, P.W.-4 Ramvati, P.W.-5 Rammilan and P.W.-6 Kunjbihari are clear, cogent and trust worthy and also corroborated by D.W.-5 Saroj, who stated that Lalita (deceased) got married 5-6 years before her death.

11. D.W.-2 Harivansh Prasad in his main examination has deposed that he performed the marriage of Lalita and Pradeep on 14.04.1998 and written the 'Lagan Patrika' (Ex. D-5), however, in his cross-examination, he had admitted that usually dates in Lagan Patrika are written as per 'Hindi Thithi' ( 'kd&laor) but, the dates in Ex.D-5 are according to English calender. He further admitted that he did not remember when that Lagan Patrika (Ex.D-5) was written. In comparison to evidence of D.W.-2 Harivansh Prasad, I find the testimony of P.W.-1 Prabunath, P.W.-4 Ramvati, P.W.-5 Rammilan and P.W.-6 Kunjbihari more trustworthy.

Cr.A. No. 892/1998

12. Dr. Ramanuj Sharma (P.W.-2) has found that the deceased had 100% burn injuries, ante-mortem in nature and dead body smelled of kerosene oil. R.C. Nishad, Investigating Officer (P.W.-7), however, did not find any kerosene oil container at the place of incident. The incident happened at the house of appellant- Pradeep Patel. There was no suggestion nor any evidence was produced by the accused to show that the death was accidental or suicidal. It is thus clear that the death was homicidal and the deceased died under suspicious circumstances.

13. In view of the aforestated, prosecution has clearly established the accusations. The conviction and sentence passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.158/1996 does not call for any interference.

14. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail, his bonds shall stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining part of jail sentence.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT. GEETHA NAIR 28/04/2022 gn 2022.04.29 14:53:27 +05'30'