The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Pal And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 16653 MP

                                  1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.357/2001

Between:-

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                      ......APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRAMOD CHOUBEY - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    RAMPAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
      S/O RAM SINGH KUSHWAHA
2.    SMT. NANNIBAI, AGED ABOUT 50
      YEARS, W/O RAMPAL KUSHWAHA,

      BOTH R/O VILLAGE LIGHORA,
      P.S.LIGHORA,     DISTRICT,
      TIKAMGARH (M.P.)

                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.A. WAKEEL-ADVOCATE)
....................................................................................................

Reserved on :14.12.2022 Pronounced on:15.12.2022 .................................................................................................... This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for hearing, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:

This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred by the State of M.P. being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed in Special Case No.165/99 (State of M.P. Vs. Rampal and Others), by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh whereby appeallants have been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story on 03.10.1997 respondent No.2/accused Nannibai informed police Lidhora, District, Tikamgarh that her daughter in law Guddi Bai was missing since 02.10.1997. On 03.10.1997, at around 7:00 AM, she has been informed by the villagers that body of Guddi Bai has been found in the well near "Pathar wale haar". When villagers reached at the well her dead body was found lying in the well. Merg report was recorded. In the course of merg enquiry, her parents, brothers and sister-in- law stated that marriage of Guddi Bai was solemnized with Ghanshyam in the year 1992-93. It was also stated that just after marriage her father-in-law was attempting to commit rape upon Guddibai and in that pursuit her mother-in-law Nanni Bai was compelling her to sleep with her husband i.e. father-in-law Rampal. When Guddi Bai denied to sleep with Rampal, she was tortured and subjected to cruelty by Nanni Bai. It was alleged that on one or two occasions father-in-law Rampal had caught hold the hand of Guddi Bai with ill intention. Guddi Bai had made a complaint of that act of Rampal to her parental side, but she after being made understand was returned back to her in laws house.

3. On 21.10.1997 accused Rampal in search of Guddi Bai had come to his parental house and had informed her parents that Guddi Bai is missing.

At this her brother Durjan @ Pappu had gone to her in laws house and there he had come to know that Guddi Bai along with her husband has gone to Ghadelu. Next day, after return of Pappu @ Durjan from Guddi Bai's in laws house, Hiralal - brother in law of Guddi Bai had informed that Guddi Bai's dead body has been found in the well. At this, Pappu @ Durjan along with other family members had gone to Lidhora and had seen the Guddi Bai's dead body. On 03.10.1997, deceased Guddi Bai's father submitted an application in writing to SDOP, Jatara, District Tikamgarh alleging that after Guddi Bai's marriage with Ghanshyam her father-in-law was having an evil eye on her and was attempting to establish illicit physical relations with her, but he could not succeed in his attempt as Guddi Bai was not ready for the same, though, she was being compelled for the same by her mother-in-law Nanni Bai. Nanni Bai had threatened her that if she would not submit herself to her father-in-law, she would be done to the death. It was further alleg ed that Guddi Bai had informed the entire incident to her parental side, but every time, she was sent back from parent's house to her in laws house by making her understand. Her father and mother-in-law are the culprit of her death. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC against respondents/accused. They abjured there guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 prosecution witnesses namely Pragi (PW1), Shyam Bihari (PW2), Jagdish Tiwari (PW3), Ramdas (PW4), Durjan @ Pappu (PW5), Dropati (PW6), Kuttu (PW7),

Rajji (PW8), Munni (PW9), Kamal Singh (PW10), Dr.P.L. Magraiya (PW11), Dr. H.N.Nayak (PW12), Radha Bai (PW13), Bhadai (PW14), Sanjiv Kanchan (PW15). In defence, Ratan (DW1) was examined.

6. Learned Special Judge recorded the evidence of the parties. After giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC by passing impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State has challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. It is submitted that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that parents, sister-in-laws and brothers of the deceased have clearly deposed before the trial Court that father-in-law Rampal - respondent No.1/accused was having an evil eye on deceased daughter-in-law and was attempting to establish illicit physical relations with her and in this pursuit he was being supported by his wife-respondent No.2/accused Nanni Bai. It is contended that when deceased did not submit herself before father-in-law. She was either murdered by respondents/accused or under the pressure or abetment and instigation given by the respondents/accused she has died under the mysterious circumstances. Therefore, findings recorded by the learned trial Judge that prosecution has not been successful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not only perverse and erroneous but also bad in law. Therefore, learned counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court and has prayed to convict the respondent/accuse for commission of offence under Section 306

of IPC.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused has supported the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal by the learned trial Judge and has contended that findings recorded by the trial Court are well reasoned and have been recorded after due appreciation of the evidence. There are no reasons to disturb the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Thus he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the State on the ground that it has been filed without any substance and merits.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial Court record.

10. Before dwelling into findings recorded by the learned trial Court, this Court is aware that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court is not required to overrule or disturb trial Court's acquittal order if it is well reasoned and there is no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is also a settled position of law that an order of acquittal is not to be set aside lightly and if two views are possible, and the view taken by the trial court is reasonable and plausible view, then the appellate Court should not disturb it just because it feels that another view of the matter is possible. In case of Bannareddy Vs. State of Karnataka 2019 (1) MPLJ criminal SC 104, it was held that

"It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial Court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached

by the trial Court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can itself reached the findings itself. In the present case, the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. However, the High Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exist no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities."

11. In Jaya Swami Vs. State of Karnatka 2019 (1) MPLJ Criminal (SC) 584 held as under:

"It is by now well settled that the appellate Court hearing the appeal filed against the judgment and order of acquittal will not overrule or otherwise disturb the trial Court's acquittal if the trial Court does not find substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. If the trial Court conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong, if the trial Courts decision was based on erroneous view of law, if the trial Court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice, if the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patiently illegal; if the trial Court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of the ballistic expert etc. the same may be construed as substantial and compelling reasons and the First Appellate Court may interfere in the order of acquittal. However, if the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible view, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court jointly will not interfere with the order of acquittal particularly in the absence of the aforementioned factors."

12. Learned trial Court in Para-7 and 10 of the impugned judgment has reached to the conclusion that prosecution has not been successful to prove that Guddu Bai's death was suicidal in nature. Dr. P.L. Magaraiya (PW-11) and Dr. H.N. Nayak (PW-12) are the doctors who had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the Guddu Bai. In Exhibit P/6 postmortem report, it is opined that Guddu Bai had died due to drowning in the water. In Exhibit P/6 report, doctors have nowhere mentioned that Guddu Bai's death was suicidal in nature. Therefore, the view taken by learned trial Court that prosecution has not been successful to prove that Guddu Bai's death was suicidal in nature appears to be a plausible view.

13. For holding a person guilty for abetment of suicide evidence as per provisions of Section 107 of the IPC should be available on following grounds.

Section 107 Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance or that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

"Explanation 1- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

"Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to

facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

14. For abetment of suicide Apex Court observed in AIR 2010 SC 327 Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh as follows:

"18. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently.

20.Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

21.The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the case decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires in active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

15. In present case, as per the evidence of the parents, deceased had expired within the period of 4 years of marriage in mysterious circumstances in her matrimonial home. Section 113A of the Evidence Act provides presumption in favour of the deceased as follows:

"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a women had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband

or such relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

16. Pragi (PW-1) is the witness of inquest panchnama. Shyambihari is the witness of site map (Exhibit-P/1). Jagdish Tiwari (PW-3) is the resident of the village Jugwao and had gone along with the parents and other family members of the deceased Guddu Bai to her in-laws house at Lidhora. He is a hearsay witness. He had drawn Exhibit P/3 complaint at the behest of Kuttu.

17. Kuttu (PW-7) and Rajji (PW-8) are the father and mother of the deceased Guddu Bai. Kuttu (PW-7) has stated that Guddu Bai had informed to her mother and sister-in-laws that her father-in-law Rampal had an evil eye on her. According to him, Guddu Bai was made understand by him and other respected villagers and she was sent back to her in-laws house. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that he has resentment with the accused persons as they have killed the Guddu Bai. Therefore, as far the evidence of Kuttu (PW-7) is concerned, from his evidence, it is clear that Guddu Bai in her life time never stated him that her father-in-law has evil eye on her and wanted to establish physical relations with her.

18. Rajji (PW-8) depicts a different story and has deposed that Guddu Bai had informed her that once her father-in-law had entered into his room and had caught hold her hand and had lifted her cloth. In her cross- examination, she has stated that she had never given Exhibit P/8 statement to Police. The evidence of this witnesses is not worth reliance as she has given a new twist to the prosecution story and has stated that accused persons were

demanding money in dowry while same is not the case of the prosecution and does not find place in her Exhibit D/3 police statement. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on her evidence.

19. Munni (PW-9) is the wife of Ramdas (PW-4), Dropadi (PW-6) is the wife of Bhadai (PW-14) and Radha Bai (PW-13) is the of Heeralal. These all are the sons and daughter-in-law of the Kuttu (PW-7). Dropadi (PW-6) has deposed that after two years of marriage her sister-in-law deceased Guddu Bai had told her that her father-in-law Rampal Singh wanted to establish illicit relations with her. She was also told by her that whenever she sit to have meal, her mother-in-law does not allow her to eat. They all demands money from her. It is also her evidence that once Rampal had reached on the cauch of Guddu Bai and had caught hold her hand. Same is the evidence of Munni (PW-9). But the evidence of Dropadi (PW-6) and Munni Bai (PW-9) does not inspire confidence as in her cross-examination she has admitted that she had never given her Exhibit - D/4 statement to police. She has resiled from her earlier statement that before 8 days of incident Guddu Bai had come to her parental house. Thus, he has not supported her Exhibit D/4 police statement and has stated new facts which are not the part of her Exhibit D/4 police statement. Thus, learned trial Court has not committed any error in disbelieving the evidence of Dropadi Bai (PW-6), Munni Bai (PW-9) and Radha Bai (PW-13). Radha Bai (PW-13) has not supported the prosecution story except the death of Guddu Bai. Bhadai (PW-14) is also hearsay witness. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Guddu had never told him anything about Rampal. Her wife had informed her about the Rampal's incident two years ago.

20. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that two years ago Draupadi (PW-6) had informed her husband about the ill-intention of Rampal in connection with Guddu Bai and Guddu Bai had informed the same to Dropadi Bai even then if for the sake of argument same is taken as true, same cannot be considered as a cause of abetment and instigation. Because an incident which had taken place two years ago, of the death of the deceased, same cannot said to be an immediate cause or abetment for committing suicide. Learned trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Dropadi (PW-6) Rajji Bai (PW-8) and Munni (PW-9) and has rightly reached to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to prove that before death of Guddu Bai any dispute had taken place between husband or wife or just before incident of the death of Guddu Bai Rampal and Nanhi Bai had abetted her to commit suicide. In a case where deceased due to her hyper sensitive nature discord and differences which happens in our day to day life commits suicide, same cannot be considered to be an abetment or instigation to commit suicide because abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in such cases conviction cannot be sustained.

21. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record, on the basis of which it can be inferred that just before Guddu Bai's death, Ram Singh or Nanhi Bai had committed any specific act, which persuaded her to commit suicide. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that two years ago or four years ago, Ram Singh had made any attempt to establish illicit physical relations

with the Guddu Bai, same cannot be considered as sufficient to instigate to commit suicide because there is no connection between her death and intention to establish illicit relations. Except the hearsay evidence of the brothers and sister-in-law of the deceased, there is no definite evidence on the record ,on the basis of which, it can be assumed that before death Rampal or Munni Bai had instigated or abetted her to commit suicide by their any act or omission.

22. It is also on record that one day before recovery of the dead body of Guddu Bai from dwell accused Rampal had come to Guddu Bai's parental house in search of her and according to deceased's brother Doorjan alias Pappu when he went to Guddu's house, he was informed that she had gone to Gandelu. Thus, it is apparent that before one or two days of her death she was not at her matrimonial home.

23. It was also cannot be overlooked that except the oral statements of the parents, brothers and sister-in-law after the death of the Guddu Bai no complaint was lodged to police by them then and there about any maltreatment, harassment or cruelty with her by Rampal or Munni Bai in her life time. Therefore, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses does not inspire confidence. Learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that prosecution has not been successful to prove that Guddu Bai has committed suicide or before her death she was being instigated for committing suicide. In such circumstances, no presumption as envisaged under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the respondents/accused.

24. Thus, having considered the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence of

witnesses on record and view taken by it is possible and plausible. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State does not appear to be worth acceptance and no interference is warranted to disturb the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court.

25. Consequently, this criminal appeal being sans merit is dismissed.

26. Trial Court record along with a copy of the appeal judgment be sent down to the court concerned through Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE kundansigned by Digitally KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2022.12.16 20:04:40 +05'30'