Ramswaroop & Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2963 MP

                                                           1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022

                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1748 of 1998

                               Between:-
                      1.       RAMSWAROOP & ORS. , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.       LAXMI PRASAD S/O RAMSWAROOP YADAY , AGED
                               ABOUT 20 YEARS, VILLAGE DHARA P.S. CIVIL
                               LINES CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.       SMT. BHAGWATI W/O RAMSWAROOP YADAV ,
                               AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE DHARA P.S.
                               CIVIL LINES CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANT
                               (BY SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE, AMICUS CURIAE)

                               AND

                               THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                            T h is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                            ORDER

This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved of judgment dated 29/07/1998 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur in S.T. No. 242/1996 convicting present appellants under Section 306/34 of IPC with R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for three months.

Similarly, they have been convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. with R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for three months. Both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution story on 18/09/1996 at about 16:30 hours, Shri Gulab S/o Sukhlal PW-1 lodged a report at Civil Lines, Police Station Chhatarpur that when he was working on an Signature SAN Not agricultural equipment at his well, then niece of Gulab had informed him that Verified

Digitally signed by Bhabhi has died due to burn injury. Then, he visited the house of Gulab when VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.03.09 12:09:42 IST

Halki Bai @ Ram Kunwar Bai had visited pond along with her mother-in-law and on return, she was wearing terrycot saree and was cooking food as a result, she caught fire. She sustained burn injury. She was taken to Chhatarpur for treatment in a tractor borrowed from Sarpanch but this tractor developed certain snag on

the way and she died on the way.

It is submitted that as per the prosecution story, deceased had gained consciousness for some time and admitted that she sustained burn injury while preparing food on a stove.

It is submitted that on the basis of statements of PW-1 Jagrani, PW-2 Laxman, PW-3 Dharam Das and PW-6 Rameshwar, learned Additional Sessions Judge has reached to a conclusion that deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of Rs. 50,000/-. It is submitted that this appreciation of evidence is not proper. It is further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected evidence of defence witnesses on the ground that either they are related to the accused or are from the same village whereas witnesses from the same village cannot be termed to be interested witnesses. There are no ingredients so to constitute the offence under Section 306/34 of I.P.C.

It is further submitted that during trial, Ramswaroop was in custody from 27/10/1996 to 15/11/1996. Similarly, Bhagwati was in custody from 28/10/1996 to 15/11/1996 for a period of 19 days. Laxmi Prasad was in custody from 28/10/1996 to 15/11/1996 for a period of 19 days. Thereafter, judgment was

delivered on 29th July, 1998. The appellants were given benefit of bail on 12/08/1998. Therefore, they have remained in custody for a further period of 15 days post conviction and during the pendency of appeal.

It is submitted that appellants are innocent. They have been convicted on false and inappropriate evidence. No ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 498-A or 306 of IPC are made out.

Learned Government Advocate vehemently opposes the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, it is evident that Jagrani mother of the deceased in her cross-examination admitted that her husband is 'Thanedar' in the Police Department. She further

admitted that though her daughter had narrated about the problems faced by her but she had also asked her not to interfere in her life, as a result, she did not lodged any report with any authority.

She has admitted that two of his daughters are married in the family of Dharamdas and Rameshwar but denied that these persons had counselled Ramkunwar. PW-1 has not given any specific date of marriage of her daughter with appellant no. 2 Laxmi Prasad. She has admitted that she had never informed her husband about tales carried by her daughter about harassment.

At this stage, learned Government Advocate submits that date of marriage is

17/05/1989 whereas incident took place on 18/09/1996. PW-2 Laxman Prasad father of the deceased has admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry. PW-3 Dharamdas has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He admitted that deceased Ramkunwar used to fight with her in-laws. This was narrated to his uncle by the accused persons who were mediator in the marriage.

PW-4 Dr. R.K. Khare has admitted that death was due to shock. PW-6 Rameshwar admitted that Ramkunwar was his sister-in-law. Her marriage was solemnized with Laxmi Prasad seven to eight years prior to the incident. Her Gauna was performed after two to three years of the incident. The deceased was staying at her in-laws place and she never narrated anything against the accused persons. This witness was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.

Thus, it is evident from the evidence of PW-1 Jagrani who has categorically admitted that Dharamdas and Rameshwar i.e. PW-3 and PW-6 are her relatives. Two of her daughters are married in their family respectively and are independent witnesses and have not supported the prosecution case. They have not narrated anything about cruelty meted out to the deceased.

PW-7 Ratan Singh Parmar ASI Police Station, Civil Lines, Chhatarpur admitted that he had taken statements of Gulab during his merg investigation. He admitted that case was not investigated by him. He had not produced statements of Gulab along with the chargesheet because Gulab is a member of the family of the deceased. He was not made a witness because his statements were not

recorded. This witness further admitted that merg intimation was given by Gulab.

Referring to Ex. D-1, he admits that Jagrani has given a clear statement that at the time of marriage, no dowry was demanded from them nor the deceased had ever informed them about demand of dowry. Similarly, she has admitted that as nobody had come from the place of in-laws of the deceased, therefore, on her insistence, the deceased was sent to her in-laws house.

PW-9 Mohanlal admitted in his case diary statements, Ex D-3 that deceased was not keeping good health. She had given birth to a girl child but the child died within two days and, thereafter, his sister had fallen ill when he had visited place of in-laws of her sister in January, 1996 to bring her back to her parental house.

It has also come on record that defence examined Gulab as DW-1. He has categorically mentioned that deceased gained consciousness while taken to hospital and had informed him in presence of brother of Sarpanch Chandrabhan i.e. Padam and Driver Saddu and Dulichand, that she caught fire while preparing meals. DW- 2 and DW-3 have supported statements of DW-1.

On minute examination of the evidence which has come on record, it is seen that there are only two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 namely mother and father of the deceased who have mentioned in their examination-in-chief about demand of Rs. 50,000/-. However, PW-1 in the case diary statements, Ex D-1, has admitted that there was no demand of dowry nor her daughter ever informed her about demand of dowry. Similarly, PW-2 is a hearsay witness inasmuch as according to PW-1, their daughter used to narrate tales of harassment only to her and not to her father who was working as 'Thanedar'.

There are independent witnesses PW-3 and PW-6 who are related to the deceased inasmuch as two of her sisters are married in their family but they have not supported the prosecution case.

Thus, prima facie, the prosecution has failed to prove the elements of cruelty so to constitute the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

Similarly, none of the witnesses have deposed about the presence of ingredients of Section 107 of IPC so to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC. There is no evidence of any harassment soon before the incident. None

of the witnesses ever said that deceased was instigated to commit suicide by the present appellants. None of the witnesses have said that she was so tortured that she was forced to commit suicide or she was intentionally aided for doing that thing i.e. suicide.

Infact Ex. D-3 is an important document which has been allegedly brushed aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge inasmuch as author of Ex. D-3, case diary statements, namely Mohan Lal Yadav, PW-9 has admitted that deceased was his youngest sister. Thus, Mohan Lal Yadav is not the witness from the side of the defence but as a prosecution witness cited by the prosecution. He has independently deposed that his sister had given birth to a girl child and that child died after two days of her birth and since then, the deceased was not keeping good health which means that she was under depression. Therefore, since January, 1996 due to a loss of a child, the deceased was in depression and this important facet of evidence has been lightly overlooked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so to record a conviction against the present appellants.

As discussed above, since independent witnesses, PW-3 and PW-6 have not supported the prosecution story, the interested witnesses i.e. the real brother of

the deceased PW-9, Mohan Lal, in his case diary statements has admitted the state of mind of the deceased assigning cogent reason for that state of mind, that being death of a new born child within two days of birth and then when these facts are taken into consideration that marriage of the deceased had taken place more than seven days prior to the incident and even if the factum of deceased catching fire while preparing meals is overlooked as it is a doubtful circumstance not supported by any independent witness but fact of the matter remains that there are no independent witnesses to allege cruelty.

There are no independent witnesses to substantiate abetment. There is no evidence to point out that there was common intention to rope in provisions of Section 34 of IPC. Even mother and father of the deceased have given contradictory statements. PW-1 Jagrani has admitted that there was no demand of dowry in her statements Ex. D-1. She has also admitted that deceased never used to communicate anything with her father and whatever communication used to take place, it used to be through her. She admitted that she had never narrated the fact

of demand of dowry to her husband PW-2.

In view of such facts, testimony of PW-2 cannot be accepted as unrebutted and wholly reliable testimony. PW-1 has since admitted in her case diary statements, that there was no demand of dowry, thus this is a fit case for acquittal inasmuch as, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants without there being any material on record.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants are acquitted. Their bail bonds are discharged.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Let record of the lower court be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy