Manoj Kumar vs The State Of M.P,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5923 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                     ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 556 of 2005

BETWEEN:-
1.    MANOJ KUMAR S/O NARSINGH LAL, AGED
      ABOUT    27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER
      (PROVATE) R/O KILA GHATI, RADHOGARH
      DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    BHAGWAN PARIKH S/O NARSINGHHLAL PARIKH,
      AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA R/O
      KILA GHATI, RADHOGARH DISTRICT GUNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    VISHNU PARIKH S/O PRABHULAL PARIKH, AGED
      ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PUJARI VILLAGE
      BARVATPURA BEENAGANJ TEHSIL CHACHODA
      DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    BHULI BAI @ KRISHNABAI W/O NARSINGH LAL,
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
      WIFE R/O KILA GHATI, RADHOGARH DISTRICT
      GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI N.P. DWIVEDI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI S.K. TIWARI,
ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF M.P, INCHARGE POLICE STATION
RADHOGARH DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI P.S. RAGHUVANSHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

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

Appellants preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C

against the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Guna in S.T. No.157/2001 by which the appellants were convicted for the offence u/S. 304(B) and 498-A of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years u/S. 304(B) of IPC. However, no separate sentence has been awarded to them u/S. 498-A of IPC by the trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge.

In brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are that Manoj husband of deceased Kamlesh gave an information to Police Raghogarh that his marriage was solemnized at Baran, Rajasthan with the deceased on 18.04.2000. 15-20 days back, he had brought his wife to his house from her parental home. On

26.11.2000 in the morning at 9 am, they had to go to attend a marriage ceremony at village Jeerapur. Manoj said his wife that they will go there at 2 pm. Thereafter on the pretext of going to sleep, she went inside the room and bolted the door inside. At 4 pm, Manoj knocked the door but the door could not be opened. Thereafter he called family members and persons of their locality and peeped through the door and found the deceased was lying dead with a saree tied around her neck. On his information, merg No.40/2000 under Section 174 of CrPC was recorded. Dead body panchnama was prepared. Dead body was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report, deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. During merg inquiry, statements of maternal side father of the deceased Rameshchandra, mother of the deceased Shyam Bai, Sushil, Dinesh Kumar Parikh and friend of deceased Ku. Dipika (PW-7) were recorded in which they have alleged that the appellant on the pretext of dowry demand used to harass the deceased due to which she committed suicide. Thereafter against the appellants crime No.379/2000 for the offence punishable under

Section 304(B) of IPC was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Trial was conduced. After completion of trial, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the aforementioned offences.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submission that deceased committed suicide for unknown reasons. The appellants had never demanded dowry and harassed the deceased for dowry. In the merg, no specific allegation for demand of dowry has been levelled against the appellants. Only omnibus allegation has been levelled that the appellants used to demand dowry and on the pretext of dowry demand, they used to harass the deceased. For convicting the accused under Section 304 (B) of IPC, harassment in respect of dowry demand soon prior to the death of deceased has to be established but in the present case prosecution miserably failed to adduce evidence on the said point. Despite this, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned judgment and urged not to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge by submitting that the appellants used to harass the deceased on account of demand of colour TV, refrigerator and Rs.20,000/- cash.

Ku. Dipika (PW-7), who is friend of the deceased, in Para 7 of the cross- examination has stated that deceased did not want to solemnize marriage at

Raghogarh.

In this regard from the side of defence Rukmani (DW-2) who is real mausi of the deceased has stated that marriage of deceased Kamlesh was solemnized at Raghogarh. She attended the marriage. At the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made. Marriage was solemnized peacefully. Before marriage she had gone to the house of the deceased at Baran. Deceased did not

want to solemnize marriage at Raghogarh. After the marriage, she had gone to Baran where deceased met her but the deceased did not tell her that her in-laws harass her due to dowry demand. In Para 4 of the cross-examination she has specifically stated that after marriage deceased told her that her father forcibly sent her to her matrimonial home.

Looking to the aforesaid evidence came on record in shape of Dipika (PW-7) and Rukmani (DW-2), it transpires that marriage of deceased was solemnized with Manoj (husband of the deceased) against her will. She was forcibly sent to her matrimonial home by her father. Deceased committed suicide for unknown reasons. Only on the basis of omnibus allegations, it cannot be presumed that soon before the death deceased was subject to cruelty on account of dowry demand.

In view of above, there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record which proves guilt of present appellants. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt. After going through the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that all circumstances do not point towards guilt of present appellants. The learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the present appellants for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. Appellants are acquitted of charge levelled against them.

It is reported that appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

A copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Digitally ojha signed by YOGENDRA OJHA Date:

2023.04.13 11:40:35 +05'30'