Vijay Pratap Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1919 MP

                              1
                                            Cr.A. No.2457/1997


        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 AT JABALPUR
          Criminal Appeal. No.2457 of 1997
1.   Vijay Pratap Singh s/o Radhe Singh,
     aged about 24 years,
2.   Smt. Gomti w/o Radhe Singh,
     aged about 45 years,
     all residents of Gram Padri, P.S. Sirmour,
     District Rewa (MP)
                                        ....APPELLANTS
                       Versus
1.   State of Madhya Pradesh
     Through : P.S. Sirmour,
     District Rewa
                                      ....RESPONDENT

Date of Judgment       25.11.2021

Bench Constituted      Single Bench

Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay
                      Dwivedi, J.

Whether approved for     .......
reporting

Name of counsels for   For Appellants : Shri G.S.
the parties            Baghel, Advocate with Ms.
                       Manju Khatri, Amicus Curiae.
                       For Respondent/State : Shri
                       Prakash   Gupta,     Panel
                       Lawyer.
Law laid down          ....

Significant Paragraphs ....

Reserved on : 25.11.2021
Delivered on : 11.02.2022

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of

the Code or Criminal Procedure against the judgment

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Third Additional

Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.76/92

whereby both the appellants have been convicted and

sentenced under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal

Code with 7 years RI and under Section 498-A with 1

year RI along with fine of Rs.200/-, failing which SI for 1

month.

2. Laconic facts of the case are that appellant

No.1 got married with deceased Smt. Rekha Singh and

within a period of 7 years of marriage, the deceased

committed suicide on 14.11.1991 by consuming some

poisonous substance (Sulphas). After marriage, the

deceased used to visit her matrimonial home and lastly

she remained there for two months and thereafter she

came to her in-laws house with her brother-in-law

(Devar) and thereafter on 14.11.1991 she died after

consuming poison. It is alleged in the FIR that the

marriage was solemnized four years prior to death of the

deceased and appellant No.1 was demanding a scooter

more in dowry but the family members of the deceased

at that time only gave assurance to provide motorcycle

in future because at that time they did not have sufficient

funds to purchase the scooter. It is alleged that due to

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

non-fulfilling the demand of scooter, the appellants used

to harass the deceased physically and mentally, and this

fact was conveyed by the deceased to her mother, sister

and other family members and finally she consumed

Sulphas on 13.11.1991 and died on 14.11.1991 at about

10 a.m. The FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged, but she was not in

a position for getting her dying declaration recorded, as

such, intimation was given by the doctor and marg case

No.18/91 was registered; an inquiry was conducted; and

thus offence was registered against the present

appellants vide Crime No.35/92 and charge-sheet was

filed on 13.03.1992 and after committal, S.T. No.76/92

was registered and tried in which the prosecution

witnesses were recorded and finally the trial Court came

to the conclusion that the death of the deceased who

committed suicide by consuming poison was within 7

years of her marriage. The reason for committing suicide

was unflagging harassment physically and mentally by

the present appellants and as such, left with no option,

the deceased took her life by consumping poison. Thus,

the appellants were found guilty of committing offence

under sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

submitted that as per the case of prosecution only

omnibus allegations regarding demand of dowry are

available on record. He has also submitted that only the

statements of interested witnesses viz. the family

members of the deceased have been recorded but no

independent witness has supported the incident and

even not produced by the prosecution to substantiate

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty; mentally and

physically and which forced the deceased to finish her

life by committing suicide.

4. Ms. Khatri appeared as amicus curiae and

urged that the defence witnesses have also been

produced and they have very categorically stated that

they never seen that the present appellants were

harassing the deceased for demand of dowry and that

was the reason for committing suicide by the deceased.

She further submitted that so far as the witnesses of

prosecution are concerned, most of them have alleged

only against appellant No.1/husband of the deceased,

but nothing has been alleged against appellant No.2 with

regard to making a demand of dowry or harassing the

deceased physically or mentally. She submitted that so

far as appellant No.2 is concerned, there is no material

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

available on record to implicate her in the alleged

offence and the prosecution basically failed to prove the

offence against her beyond all reasonable doubts and as

such, she has been falsely implicated as normally

happens in a case of like present that after the death of

bride, her family members make false allegations of

demand of dowry and cruelty against all the in-laws of

deceased. Shri Baghel, has also made entry on behalf of

the appellants and submitted that no such report with

regard to any cruelty against appellant No.1 has been

made by the deceased or her relatives to any of the

authorities and also to the police. It is also submitted by

him that the deceased and her family members neither

disclosed about the allegations of demand of dowry and

cruelty with the deceased before anybody nor have they

approached to the renowned and respectable members

of the society so as to get such dispute resolved. This

otherwise reveals that it is nothing but an afterthought

and as such, false allegations have been made by them

only after the death of the deceased. The counsels for

the appellants have submitted that the trial Court has not

appreciated the statement of the defence witnesses and

also not assigned proper reason as to why the defence

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

witnesses could not have been relied upon and as to

why they are not trustworthy. With the aforesaid

submissions, it is argued that the judgment passed by

the trial Court awarding sentence and holding appellants

guilty, is not sustainable and accordingly, it is liable to be

set aside.

5. Alternatively, Shri Baghel has made a

submission that so far as appellant No.1 is concerned,

the sentence awarded to him can be reduced to the

period already undergone.

6. Shri Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing

for the respondent/State per contra, has opposed the

submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and

submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated

the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has rightly

held the appellants guilty for committing such an offence

and awarded adequate sentence to them and the

judgment is well founded and reasoned one based upon

sound reasoning, as such, the same does not call for

any interference.

7. I have heard the rival contentions of the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

8. Although, the appellants have tried to

establish the fact that the date of marriage is not certain

and also the fact that the date of incident was within 7

years from the date of marriage, is not proved by the

prosecution and its witnesses, but from the material

available on record and considering the statements of

the witnesses namely Amrik Singh (PW-4), Krishnkali

(PW-5) and Smt. Chourasiya (PW-6), it is clear that they

have very categorically stated that the incident occurred

within 4 years of marriage. Although, on the contrary the

defence witnesses by disputing this fact, have stated

that the marriage of appellant No.1 was solemnized with

the deceased 12 yeas back from the date of incident but

considering the other part of their statements it is clear

that they were not acquainted with other facts relating to

the deceased, like- her name, other facts and, therefore,

their statement has not been relied upon by the trial

Court. In my opinion, even by making comparative

assessment of the statement of the witnesses, it is clear

that the witnesses of the prosecution were more reliable

and trustworthy as far the date of marriage is concerned

and the trial Court, therefore, did not commit any

illegality in holding that the incident occurred within 7

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

years of the date of marriage. As such, the submission

made by the counsel for the appellants has no

substance that the date of marriage has not been proved

by the prosecution.

9. So far as the allegation against appellant

No.2, the mother-in-law of the deceased is concerned, it

is the prosecution witness namely Krishnkali (PW-5) who

in her examination-in-chief in paragraph-2 has stated

that the deceased had informed her that in her in-laws

house, her husband/appellant No.1 used to demand

scooter and he only used to physically and mentally

harass her. Smt. Chourasiya (PW-6), the mother of the

deceased has also stated that the deceased had

informed her about the demand of dowry and ill-

treatment by only appellant No.1. These witnesses have

not been declared hostile and as such, it is clear that

there was no allegation with regard to committing any

cruelty or demand of dowry by appellant No.2 and,

therefore, the submission made by the counsel for the

appellants have substance in saying that appellant No.2

has wrongly been implicated. Although, PW-4 has said

so, but considering the fact that the other witnesses

have not taken the name of appellant No.2 nor alleged

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

anything against her, it is clear that the offence against

appellant No.2 is not made out and it is also clear that

the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge

under sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC against appellant

No.2. Therefore, she is acquitted from the alleged

offence and conviction made against her is hereby set

aside.

10. So far as appellant No.1 is concerned, the

witnesses of prosecution consistently made allegation

against him and stated that he used to demand scooter

in dowry and for fulfilling the demand, he was giving

cruel treatment to her wife/deceased and therefore, she

committed suicide. The witnesses of prosecution though

were relatives of the deceased but they consistently

stated that the it was appellant No.1 who used to

demand scooter in dowry and for that he was harassing

the deceased physically and mentally. Merely because

family members of the deceased have not discussed this

thing to any other person or reported the said matter to

any of the authorities, the statements of the witnesses

cannot be discarded because if such type of situation

arose in the family, it does not mean that the family

members should make the report to the police authority

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

or to make endeavour to get the said dispute resolved

but normally the family members think that with the

passage of time such things would be normalized or as

and when they fulfil the demand, the bone of contention

would dissipate. The witnesses adduced by the defence

are not seemingly trustworthy because they were not

certain about the situation as alleged against the

appellants. If a comparative assessment is made with

the nature of statement of the witnesses, the witnesses

adduced by the prosecution appear to be more

trustworthy. The defence has come-up with a case that

the deceased committed suicide because she was

suffering pain in her stomach but nothing has been

produced by the defence that the deceased was taking

treatment for any such ailment and even nobody was

examined to ascertain this fact that the deceased was

suffering from any such ailments and due to which, she

committed suicide. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion

that so far as appellant No.1 is concerned, he has rightly

been found guilty of committing offence of Sections

304-B and 498-A of IPC and the said finding of the trial

Court does not call for any interference. The trial Court

has awarded the minimum sentence of 7 years as has

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

been prescribed under Section 304-B of IPC and

therefore, the submissions made by the counsel for the

appellants that alternatively sentence awarded to

appellant No.1 can be reduced to the period undergone,

is not acceptable for the reason that minimum period of

7 years is prescribed in the Statute and the period of

undergone is less than that and therefore, the said

period cannot be reduced by this Court to the period

already undergone.

11. To reinforce the view taken hereinabove, it is

apposite to get a glimpse to a decision of the Supreme

Court in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Vikram Das (SLP (Cri.) No.2328/2015) wherein it has

been observed that where minimum sentence is

provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the

minimum sentence. It is also observed by the Supreme

Court that even the provisions of Article 142 of the

Constitution cannot be resorted to impose sentence less

than the minimum sentence.

12. Accordingly, taking note of the view of the

Supreme Court juxtaposing it with the discussion made

in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeal in respect of

appellant No.1 is dismissed. He is directed to surrender

Cr.A. No.2457/1997

before the trial Court for serving the remaining part of the

jail sentence awarded to him, failing which, the trial

Court shall take necessary steps in that regard.

13. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned, the

judgement of the trial Court is set aside and appeal in

her respect is allowed. Consequently, she is acquitted

from the charges levelled against her. She is on bail, her

bail bond stands discharged.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

ANIL CHOUDHARY 2022.02.14 11:21:56 +05'30'