Mohanlal vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3147 MP

                                -1-
                                                     Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

                              BEFORE
       SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 470 of 1999

 Between:-
 MOHANLAL @ MOHAN,
 S/O GABBUJI,
 AGED - 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION - LABOUR,
 R/O - DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....APPELLANT
 (BY MS. NISHA JAISWAL, ADVOCATE THROUGH LEGAL AID )

 AND

 THE STATE OF M.P.,
 THROUGH POLICE STATION DEWAS,
 DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENT
 (BY MS. SEEMA MAHESHWARI, PL)

      This Criminal Appeal coming on this day, the court passed the

following:

                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 07th March, 2022)

Appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment

of conviction dated 17/03/1999 passed by 4th Additional Sessions

Judge, Dewas in Session Trial Court No.255/1995 convicting him

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.

02- It is an admitted fact that appellant Mohanlal is the husband of

deceased Madhubai and father of deceased Ku. Aarti. Marriage of the

deceased had taken place with the appellant Mohanlal about 10-12

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

years prior to the incident and they had a daughter of 06 months. It is

also an admitted fact that co-accused Ramavatar, Gabbuji and

Kamlabai are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law

respectively of the deceased Madhubai.

03- Necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are

that immediately after the marriage, present appellant as well as other

co-accused persons have started maltreating the deceased Madhubai

with cruelty and harassing her for demand of dowry. It is alleged that

the present appellant used to beat her wife Madhubai after consuming

liquor and pressurize her for bringing the money from her father. The

deceased narrated the entire incident to her parents when she went to

her maternal house. On account of cruelty and harassment by the

appellant and other co-accused persons, the deceased Madhubai

committed suicide by hanging along with her six months old daughter.

04- Accordingly, Merg Nos.61/1995 and 62/1995 were registered.

SDOP P. S. Raghuvanshi (PW-7) conducted merg inquiry. He

prepared dead body Panchnama of both the deceased (Ex.-P/4 and

P/5) and spot map (Ex.-P/9) and made application for postmortem

(Ex.-P/7 and P/8) of both the deceased persons. After recording the

statement of witnesses, the police came to the conclusion that offence

under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC had been committed.

Accordingly, FIR was registered against the present appellant and

other co-accused persons. They were arrested through arrest memo

(Ex.-P/11 to P/14). FSL expert had also inspected the spot and

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

prepared Inspection Report (Ex.-P/15). After completion of the

investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant and

other co-accused persons for offence under Section 498-A and 306 of

the IPC.

05- The trial Court by an order dated 29/08/1996 framed the

charges under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC against the appellant

and other co-accused persons. The appellant absurd his guilt and

pleaded not guilty.

06- The prosecution in order to prove his case examined as many

as 08 witnesses. The appellant as well as other co-accused persons

examined one witness in their defence. The trial Court after

considering the evidence available on record acquitted the co-accused

Ramavatar, Gabbuji and Kamlabai from all the charges vide judgment

dated 05/02/1999. The acquittal of the co-accused persons have not

been challenged either by the prosecution or by the complainant.

Therefore, any reference to the acquitted co-accused persons would

be co-incidental and would be for the purpose of considering the

allegations made against the appellant only.

The trial Court vide judgment dated 17/03/1999 convicted the

appellant Mohanlal for offence under Section 306 of the IPC and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

07- Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that all the

prosecution witnesses were interested witness. There are material

contradictions and omissions in their statements. Not a single witness

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

has been examined by the prosecution, which was present at the time

of incident. All the witnesses are the hearsay witnesses. There is no

evidence on record to show that the deceased Madhubai was even

harassed for the demand of dowry. The trial Court has acquitted three

co-accused persons on the basis of evidence produced by the

prosecution but on the basis of same evidence the trial Court has

erroneously convicted the present appellant. The entire case of the

prosecution is doubtful. Prosecution has failed to prove his case

beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, present appellant

deserves to be acquitted from all the charges.

08- Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State has

supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and prays

for dismissal of the present appeal by submitting that the trial Court,

after appreciating the evidence available on record in detail, came to

the conclusion that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and

harassment by the appellant for demand of dowry. The appellant used

to maltreated the deceased continuously with cruelty. The trial Court

has not committed any mistake in holding that the appellant is guilty of

offence under Section 306 of the IPC and therefore, the present

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

09- Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and

perused the record of the trial Court with due care.

10- The prosecution has examined Dr. Prakash Lakkad (PW-5), who

has conducted postmortem of deceased Madhubai and deceased Ku.

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

Aarti. As per the postmortem report (Ex.-P/2 and P/3) the cause of

death of both the deceased persons were asphyxia due to hanging.

There is no cross-examination of this witness on above point,

therefore, it is established that the cause of death of both the

deceased persons was asphyxia due to hanging and it was unnatural

death.

11- Prosecution has examined Basanti Bai (PW-2), who is the sister

of deceased Madhubai. According to her statement the deceased was

beaten and brutally harassed by the accused persons. They

demanded dowry. The deceased meet to Basanti Bai two months prior

of the incident at Vasudevpura and made complaint to her that she

was beaten by accused persons.

12- Laxminarayan (PW-1), who is brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the

deceased Madhubai has been examined. According to this witness,

marriage of the deceased Madhubai was solemnized with the

appellant Mohanlal when deceased Madhubai came to see her sister,

at that time she stated that she is being harassed by the appellant and

her in-laws. Accused persons used to beating and abusing to the

deceased and also demanding dowry. He also saw green and yellow

sign of the injury over the body of the deceased several time when she

came to meet.

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

13- Suresh (PW-3), who is the brother of the deceased has stated

that accused persons used to quarrel with the deceased and

deceased was beaten by the accused. They also harassed her for

demanding money, cloths and grocery.

14- In the present case, statement of Suresh (PW-3), who is the

brother of the deceased, is taken into account. In his examination-in-

chief, he has stated that deceased has informed him that she is being

ill treated. Same statement was also deposed by the Laxminarayan

(PW-1) and Basanti Bai (PW-2), who were brother-in-law and sister of

the deceased. The conduct of all the witnesses creates doubt and their

testimony in spite of the fact that these witnesses were told by the

deceased that she was ill treated, yet they have not made any effort to

pacify the same dispute. In paragraph No.4 of his cross-examination

Suresh (PW-3) has stated that before the death of Madhubai, he never

visited Dewas and after receiving the information regarding the death

of Madhubai, when they went to the Dewas, they did not launched any

report before the Police. There is no explanation as to why the sister,

brother and other relatives did not make any complaint or launched

FIR immediately after recovery of deceased's dead body. Therefore,

their statements becomes doubtful.

15- Apart from that there are general allegations and omnibus

statements have been given by all the close relatives of the deceased.

Suresh (PW-3), Basanti Bai (PW-2) and Laxminarayan (PW-1)

regarding the ill treatment with the deceased have not given any

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

particulars of such incident that when and where such ill treatment with

the deceased was done by the appellant. In this reference, the

statement of Laxminarayan (PW-1) is also relevant. Though he stated

that the deceased was ill treated by the appellant but paragraph No.6

of his cross-examination he has stated that Madhubai did not told him

anything about the ill treatment. He also admits that they did not

launched any report against the accused persons and when they

visited Dewas after receiving the information regarding the death of

the deceased, on the same day, they did not stated anything about the

ill treatment of the deceased by the appellant before the police.

16- The testimony of Suresh (PW-3) in light of the statement of

Basanti Bai (PW-2) and Laxminarayan (PW-1) is also doubtful with

regard to the Marpeet of the deceased Madhubai. Basanti Bai (PW-2)

has not stated anything that she has informed his husband

Laxminarayan that Madhubai was ill treated by her husband and in-

laws. Basanti Bai also admitted in her cross-examination that they did

not launched any report against the accused persons about the ill

treatment and demand of dowry with the deceased. Statements of all

the witnesses are omnibus and contrary to each other. Therefore, they

did not launch any report against the appellant and other co-accused

persons about such incident. Therefore, their statements becomes

very doubtful.

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

17- In this reference, the judgment passed by this Court in Girdhar

Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Vol.4

MPLJ (SC) 5 and relevant paragraph No.16 is reproduced as under:-

"16. We have already noted Section 498-A herein before in this judgment and as such we need not delve upon the same in greater detail herein excepting recording that the same stands attributed only in the event of proof of cruelty by the husband or the relatives of the husband of the woman. Admittedly, the finding of the trial Court as regards the death negated suicide with a positive finding of accidental death. If suicide is rule out then in that event applicability of Section 498- A can be had only in terms of explanation (b) thereto which in no uncertain terms records harassment of the woman and the Statute itself thereafter clarifies it to the effect that it is not every such harassment but only in the event of such a harassment being with a view to coerce her to any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand- there is total absence of any of the requirements of the Statute in terms of Section 498-A. The three letters said to have been written and as noticed earlier cannot possibly lend any credence to the requirement of the Statute or even a simple demand for dowry."

18- In the case of Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M. P.

reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the allegations levelled are as

under:-

"1 ........ My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in- law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.

The Court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite

conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted

on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the

conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC merely on the

basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

unsustainable in law.

19- The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra

Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 held

as under:-

"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be (2001) 9 SCC 618 capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition)."

Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention

cannot be termed as instigation. [See Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of

Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734].

20- In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, it has been held as under:-

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued

- 10 -

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

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. The intention of the Legislature and

the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme 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 an active act or

direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option

and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such

a position that he committed suicide.

21- Therefore, it is clear that mere hurling of abuses, intimidation,

threats of any kind are not strong enough causes to compel a person

of age of majority to end his or her life. More strong and pressing

reasons are required to be shown by the prosecution to make out a

case for abetment to commit suicide. There should not only be a

strong but also live and proximate link between the cause and suicide

so as to sustain a charge of abetment to commit suicide. Therefore,

the overt act of argument and slapping cannot compel an able bodied

sane-headed individual of age of majority since long to take the

extreme step of suicide. So far as possible reason for a young married

lady with her minor daughter committing suicide, one of the reason

- 11 -

Cr. A. No. 470 of 1999

suggested by the defence is that due to the unnatural death of elder

daughter, deceased Madhubai was upset. Laxminarayan (PW-1) and

Basanti Bai (PW-2) have also admitted in their cross-examination that

elder daughter of the deceased expired suddenly and unnaturally prior

to the incident and due to which Madhubai was very upset. Therefore,

there is a possibility that due to such frustration deceased might

commit suicide with her young daughter.

22- In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that all

the important clause and proximate link between the cause and the

suicide seems to be not only weak but missing in the present case.

The trial Court speculated the unnatural death of deceased Madhubai

and without any cogent evidence concluded only through conjectures,

that the appellant is guilty for abetment of suicide of his wife. In such

circumstances this Court has no hesitation in declaring that the trial

Court has erred in concluding that the deceased Madhubai was

instigated to commit suicide by the appellant. Therefore, offence of

abetment to suicide is not made out against the appellant.

23- In view of the aforesaid, in the present case a benefit of doubt is

to be given to the appellant and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The

appellant Mohanlal is acquitted of charge under Section 306 of the

IPC. His bail bond stands discharged.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.03.07 19:34:13 +05'30'