Ramkripal & Ors. vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 13667 MP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 A T JA BALPUR
                           BEFORE
           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                 ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2615 of 1998

BETWEEN:-
1.    ASHOK KUMAR S/O RAM
      KRIPAL, AGED ABOUT 27
      YEARS, R/O GHAROLA
      MOHALLA,     SHAHDOL
      POLICE        STATION
      SHAHDOL, TAHSIL AND
      DISTRICT     SHAHDOL
      (M.P.)
2.    ARUN S/O RAM KRIPAL,
      AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
      R/O         GHAROLA
      MOHALLA,    SHAHDOL
      POLICE       STATION
      SHAHDOL, TAHSIL AND
      DISTRICT    SHAHDOL
      (M.P.)
                                                       .....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. MANJU KHATRI - AMICUS CURIAE)

AND
STATE OF      M.P.       (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                      .....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RANJANA AGNIHOTRI - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Reserved on          :      10.08.2023
Pronounced on        :      22.08.2023

       This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                              JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Case No.115/1997, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years each.

2. Under the impugned judgment four appellants stood convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Appellant No.1 Ram Kripal and appellant No.2 Phoolmati died during pendency of this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, abated in their regard.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Shakun Bhai was married to appellant No.3 Ashok on 7th of May 1994, appellant no.4 is the younger brother of Ashok while appellants No.1 and 2 were the father and mother of appellant Ashok. During the midnight of 13th and 14th of March 1997, Shakun Bai suffered burn injuries while she was in her matrimonial house alongwith the appellants. She was taken to the hospital by appellant Ashok during that night itself and at 7.25 a.m. on the next morning she succumbed to her burn injuries. The postmortem was conducted and she was cremated on the date she died. Her father gave a written complaint to the police, on the basis of which the FIR was registered against the appellants. The matter was investigated, the charge-sheet was filed and after conclusion of trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced under the impugned judgment, as discussed above.

4. The grounds raised in this appeal are that there was no convincing evidence to prove that the appellants ever demanded dowry or subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment. The learned Special Judge committed an error in holding that appellants caused the dowry death of deceased; it was overlooked that no demand of dowry was made even at the time of marriage and there was no tangible evidence to prove criminal act of appellants. The evidence was contradictory on the items for which the alleged demand was being made. The prosecution case was supported only by relatives of deceased; material questions were not put to the appellants in their examination conducted under Section 313 of CrP.C. and it was ignored that the husband namely appellant No.3 Ashok Kumar took the deceased to the hospital for treatment immediately after she sustained the burn injuries. The evidence on record was wrongly interpreted to give the erroneous finding of conviction. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment and adverse finding deserve to be set aside and the appellants be graciously acquitted of the charge framed against them.

5. The State has opposed this criminal appeal stating that the impugned judgment is based on recent findings, hence deserves no interference.

6. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and record of the trial Court is perused.

7. The criminal proceedings against the appellants were initiated on the basis of a written complaint made by the father of deceased on the date she died. The said report is marked as Ex.P/1, on the basis which FIR was registered against the appellants. The written report as well as the FIR which is marked here as Ex.P/16, are examined carefully. It is mentioned therein that the deceased was murdered by the appellants by setting her on fire and they even cremated her without giving any information to her parental side. The statements of prosecution witnesses have been examined in this context.

8. Gulab Chand (PW/1), the father of deceased contradicting his written report and FIR has stated in his testimony that he was informed about burns caused to his daughter and he had reached the hospital in the evening of 14th of March, from where his daughter was being taken for cremation. His entire statement does not reveal that the deceased was cremated in his absence. Similar are the statements of mother of deceased namely Dhania Bai (PW/2), brothers of deceased namely Manoj Kumar (PW/3) and Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW/5) wherein they have admitted that they had come before the deceased was cremated and had seen the dead body. The statements of other relatives of deceased namely Subhash Chand Gupta (PW/7) and Ram Chand Gupta (PW/8) are not different on this point. These statements rebut the claim made in Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/16 that appellants did not inform the incident of burning to the relatives of deceased and hurriedly or stealthily cremated the deceased before her relatives could arrive.

9. Facts stated in written complaint and FIR regarding hurried cremation appear to be made to cast a reflection on the guilt intention of appellants but these facts have not been found to be true. Incorrect narration of facts in written complaint and FIR creates an impression that the complainant party wanted to enrope the appellants falsely.

10. The written report claims that the deceased was being harassed for dowry, but what was being demanded as dowry is not disclosed in that written report. Record shows that the statements of witnesses were recorded by the police on 15.03.1997, wherein it was revealed that the appellants were demanding a two wheeler and a colour TV in dowry.

11. The court statements of Gulab Chand (PW1), the father of deceased reveals that he was informed about these demands only through the deceased. He has admitted this fact in his cross-examination that no demand was made about these items at the time of marriage. In para 3 of his statements, he has disclosed that in the month of February, 1997 when he visited Shahdol, he was called by appellant Ram Kripal at his shop, where he made complaints about the non-cooperative behaviour of deceased and asked the witness to advise the deceased, being her father. These facts reveal that none of the appellants ever made any complaint or demand to the father of deceased regarding motorcycle or colour TV. There were merely some disputes regarding household work, for which complaint was made to the father of deceased and he had not only promised to discuss the matter with deceased but had also asked the appellant Ram Kripal to make the deceased understand in his own way.

12. Dhania Bai (PW2) is the mother of deceased. She has improved upon her police statements marked as Ex.D/2 that the sister-in-law of deceased namely Maya had come to their house and made a demand of TV and vehicle. The sister-in-law of deceased was never shown to be involved in this alleged demand and she was not even prosecuted in the case. This witness has failed to make any statement regarding the demand of dowry made to her by any of the appellants. Her police statements disclose that the brother of deceased namely Vinod had visited the matrimonial house of deceased, where he witnessed the dispute in which demand of dowry was being made, but interestingly, this fact has not been stated on oath in her court testimony, by Dhania Bai.

13. The fact that brother of deceased Vinod had visited the house of deceased on 13.03.1997 alongwith his uncle Raju Ram Gupta has been disclosed in the statements of Manoj Kumar (PW/3) and Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW5), who are the brothers of deceased. It is claimed by Vinod Kumar Gupta that the mother-in-law of deceased was scolding her for not doing any household work and for watching TV the whole day. These statements confirm the complaint made by the father-in-law of deceased to her father in the month of February 1997. The statements of this witness further reveal that he was informed by deceased that on the preceding day she was asked by her father-in-law to take the TV in her room, upon which she took it and installed it in her room. These details reveal that the dispute was not about the demand of colour TV, but was solely related to negligence of household work by the deceased, against which appellants were making repeated complaints. Facts proved in the case indicate that it was the deceased, who was in the habit of over watching the TV and it cannot be said with certainty whether the demand of colour TV was being made by the appellants or was emanating from the deceased herself. It is relevant to mention here that no direct demand was ever made by the appellants regarding colour TV either at the time of marriage, prior to it or after it from any of the family members of deceased.

14. The court statements of Vinod claimed that his sister had the TV installed in her room because her father-in-law had asked her to do so, but the police statements of this witness marked as Ex. D3, claim that the appellants were having a dispute with the deceased on her taking the TV in her own room. The two statements are not conciliatory to each other. Further, this witness has claimed that when he visited his sister's home on 13.03.1997, she had shown her injuries to him, but this important fact is not mentioned in the police statement of this witness marked as Ex.D3. What the statements of Vinod (PW5) make one to believe is that he was present in the house of deceased on 13.03.1997, when the mother-in-law of deceased was having a verbal dispute with the deceased regarding negligence of household work by deceased and for over watching the TV, but his statements do not prove that he saw any injuries on the person of deceased or any demand of colour TV/motorcycle was made to him by the appellants just preceding the death of Shakun Bai.

15. Statements of another brother of deceased namely Manoj Kumar (PW3) are of hearsay nature. Subhash Chand Gupta (PW7) and Ramchandra Gupta, (PW8) are the other relatives of deceased, who have claimed in para 6 and para 4 of their respective statements that the demand for colour TV and motorcycle was made at the time of Bidaai, but these facts are missing in police statements of these witnesses. Further what has been stated by these witnesses has not been corroborated by the father of deceased namely Gulab Chand (PW1) from whom the alleged demand was made at the time of Bidaai.

16. Brother of deceased Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW5) has disclosed in para 2 of his testimony that on hearing the news that his sister has got burn injuries, he arrived in Shahdol at 1:00 p.m while his parents came in the evening. He has also admitted the fact that by the time he reached the hospital in Shahdol, the police was there, but he did not make any complaint to the police. His statements also reveal that in the evening, he met his father, but did not narrate him the incident of previous date of visiting the matrimonial house of his sister and meeting her. The incident of 13.03.1997 finds no mention in the FIR. It appears that the story of 13th of March was later developed to give strength to the claim of demand of dowry and cruelty. It is also relevant to mention here that the relative, who had allegedly accompanied Vinod Kumar Gupta to the matrimonial house of deceased, has not been examined as a witness in this case nor his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses given at the time of filing of charge-sheet.

17. The comprehensive discussion in foregoing paras highlights that there has been serious improvements and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses on material issues, in the light of which the prosecution story appears to be doubtful and on its basis the conviction and sentence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants namely Ashok Kumar and Arun Kumar are acquitted of the charge of Section 304/34 IPC. They both are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged with immediate effect.

18. A copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the

Court below for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

rv

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2023.08.23 18:28:41 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8