Jai Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 7179 MP

                                                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                               BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                                 ON THE 12th OF MAY, 2022
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1935 of 1997

Between :

Jai Singh S/o Shri Niranjan Singh
Pawar, Aged 24 years, R/o Village
Kachna, P.S.Barghat Tehsil and
District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh.
                                                                                         ..... Appellant
(By Shri N.S.Solanki, Amicus Curiae)

AND

State of Madhya Pradesh, Through
Police Station Barghat    District
Seoni, Madhya Pradesh.
                                                                                     ...... Respondent
(Shri Chandrapal Singh Parmar, Public Prosecutor)
.............................................................................................................

          This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed
                                              the following :

                                           JUDGMENT

The appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 306 and 498A IPC wherefor he has been sentenced to undergo RI for three and one year respectively recorded vide judgment dated 26.08.1997 in ST No.21/95 by Sessions Judge, Seoni.

2- The prosecution case, in brief, is that within 7 years of marriage on 31.07.1994, at about 19:30 hrs. in village Kachna, Police Station Barghat, District Seoni wife of the appellant committed suicide by jumping into a Well. On receiving information Ex.P/6, Merg 44/94 was registered and inquired by the Police. Dead body was fished out of the Well and Panchnama Ex.P/4 was prepared. The body was sent for Post Mortem vide Ex.P/1. The doctor confirmed the death by ante mortem drowning. The police recorded the statement of the witnesses including brother of the deceased Babulal PW-4 who made allegations of cruelty extended by the appellant, his mother and brother. The police Barghat registered a Crime No.140/1994, arrested them all and filed the charge-sheet.

3- All the three accused persons namely Jai Singh, Raju Bai and Jagdish were charged under Section 498A and 306 IPC. They abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.

4- During the trial, Raju bai died, therefore, the trial Court delivered the judgment against Jai Singh and Jagdish. Jagdish was acquitted while Jai Singh was convicted as indicated hereinabove.

5- The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that it was an accidental death. The deceased never committed suicide. There is no witness to say that she committed suicide. There is no other evidence to say that the death was suicidal in nature. No other witness except real brother of the deceased Babulal PW-4 has supported the case of the prosecution. Babulal PW-4 has exaggerated his statement before the

Court, therefore, the trial Court has committed error in relying upon sole, vague and bias statement of Babulal PW-4, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

6- In the arguments, ld. counsel for the appellant has reiterated the grounds mentioned hereinabove, therefore, there is no need to reprise them here.

7- Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal, supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8- I have considered the rival contentions of the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.

9- It is not disputed that after about five years of marriage the deceased died of drowning. The State has prosecuted the appellant stating that it was a suicide while the defence has come with a case that it was an accidental death. The State has examined Gyan Das PW2, who has stated that on the date of the incident he was about hundred feet away from the place of the incident and saw that the deceased came out of the house running and jumped into the well and died. The defence has examined Ramanand DW2 who has stated that the deceased was trying to fetch water from the well and slipped into the well suddenly and died. The statement of Gyan Das could not be rebutted in the cross-examination and his presence is admitted by the brother of the appellant in the merg intimation given by him to the police, while there is no evidence of presence of Ramanand on the spot at the time of the incident. Therefore

the trial Court has rightly discarded the version of Ramanand and has rightly relied upon the statement of Gyan Das. Thus, it has rightly been held that on the date of the incident the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well.

10- Now the question is whether the alleged suicide had been abetted by the appellant or whether the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty ?

11- To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined Gyan Das PW2 and Chain Singh PW3 but they both have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Nothing could be extracted in their cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution.

12- The third witness examined by the prosecution is real brother of the deceased Babulal PW4. He has stated before the Court that at the time of her visit to her matrimonial house, the deceased used to tell him that her mother-in-law and husband used to harass her. They were not providing her proper food and other basic amenities. He further stated that whenever they visit her in-laws house, they were welcomed, given proper respect and offered food etc. but the deceased used to tell them, that after their departure they used to deprive her food on the pretext that since her brothers had food, she cannot have it. They often exhorted them. Once they started living separately but reunited after about a year. Since they were not providing food and other basic amenities to the deceased, his younger brother had once called Panchayat.

13- But there is nothing on record to support the statement of this witness Babulal PW4. The deceased remained with her husband, the appellant, for about six years after her marriage but it is not the case of the prosecution that during this entire period or during her lifetime she or any of her relative had ever made any complaint to any of the authorities. There is no evidence that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty. No reason, whatsoever, for the alleged cruelty has been assigned by Babulal. The fact of separation and reunion of the deceased with her in-laws has been stated first time in the Court. He has not offered any explanation as to why this was not disclosed before the police when his statement was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Babulal PW4 has stated perturbed with the ill behaviour of the appellant and her mother, his younger brother had once called a Panchayat but he has admitted that he didn't attend that Panchayat. His younger brother has not been examined before the Court nor any Panch or other villager who attended the said Panchayat has been examined before the Court. Babulal has stated that just four days prior to the incident, his younger brother had visited the house of the deceased and invited her for Raksha Bandhan. He has not made any allegation that at that time his younger brother had experienced any ill treatment from the side of the appellant or that the deceased had made any complaint about any harassment or cruelty or ill behaviour of the appellant or her in-laws. There is no allegation of any type of demand whatsoever and as stated above the prosecution has not come with any reason for which the deceased was ill treated or the appellant had subjected her to cruelty. The statement of Babulal are vague. He has not

supplied any particulars of any specific incident of harassment or cruelty. Such type of vague allegations, in the considered opinion of this court, are not sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. 14- There is no allegation of Babulal that the appellant was demanding anything or was harassing the deceased on account of her failure to fulfill his demand.

15- The solitary statement of Babulal is vague, lacks particulars and support from any other evidence and is not sufficient to prove ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of cruelty or abatement to suicide. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. Therefore the impugned judgment is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 306 and 498A of IPC. His bail bonds stand discharged.

16- The order of the trial Court with regard to the disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2022.05.14 11:47:22 +05'30'