Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21747 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                 1
 IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                  ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 452 of 2010

BETWEEN:-
RAMESH S/O ANNALAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
ANAS, THANA AMLA, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPLICANT
(NONE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION, BETUL, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)

      Heard on        : 23.11.2023
      Pronounced on: 19.12.2023

      This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for

pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                  ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, delivered on 23.2.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.136/2009 whereby he dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the decision of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul, delivered on 12.10.2009 in RCT No.1992/2006 holding the applicant guilty of offence of Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine amount of

Rs.500/- with a default clause to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, in case of non-payment of fine.

2. The prosecution case may be summarised as, Bhavna was married to applicant on 27.4.1996 but 4-5 months after the marriage, applicant started cruelty with her and used to ask her to bring Rs.50,000/- in cash; as this demand was not fulfilled, applicant tried to immolate the complainant Bhavna on 14.7.2000 in presence of her sister Devna; for the intervention by Devna, applicant could not succeed in the attempt; finding her life in danger, wife Bhavna came back to her parental house and lodged a report in Police Station, Betul; the matter was referred to Parivaar Paramarsh Kendra where a

settlement was reached between the applicant and his wife and under it, wife Bhavna again started residing with applicant; as her harassment began afresh and demand of Rs.50,000/- in dowry resurfaced, wife Bhavna came back to her parental house and lodged a report in which investigation was held and upon filing of charge-sheet, the trial ensued. After conclusion of trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and his appeal was also dismissed. Three other family members of applicant, viz. his parents and brother, were also held guilty by the trial court but their appeal was allowed and they were acquitted.

3 . Applicant has argued this appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment is patently illegal and erroneous as it suffers from the vice of non- application of mind; the evidence available on record was not appreciated in correct perspective and hyper-technical view was taken; after the settlement of dispute in Parivaar Paramarsh Kendra applicant was having good relationship with his wife, still he was convicted; thus, the finding recorded by courts below is perverse and illegal; independent witnesses did not support the prosecution

case and despite the discrepancies in the statements of interested witnesses, applicant was convicted. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment be set aside and the applicant be acquitted.

4. This criminal revision has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment which would justify intervention in this criminal revision. It is, therefore, prayed that this criminal revision should be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the State has been heard and the records of the courts below have been perused. On the date fixed for final hearing applicant failed to appear, but later written arguments were submitted on his behalf.

6 . From the facts of prosecution case, it appears that there were two complaints made by wife Bhavna but documentary evidence available on the record of trial court shows that only one complaint dated 21.7.2000 was marked in evidence i.e. Ex.P-1. Whether any FIR was registered on its basis is not clarified by prosecution. If this complaint was the basis of undertaking proceedings of settlement before the Parivaar Paramarsh Kendra, then also documents relating to those proceedings were not exhibited. Ex.P-2 is the FIR a n d the information, on the basis of which this FIR was registered, was received in police station on 16.5.2001. The complainant in this case was again Bhavna i.e. the wife of applicant.

7. Exs.P-1 and P2 reflect that they are two different complaints made on two different dates but contents of these two documents are identical and no new facts were thus alleged in the FIR, marked as Ex.P-2.

8 . Bhavna (P.W.1) is the complainant, who has claimed that she was treated well only for six months after the marriage and thereafter applicant used

to ill-treat her; her allegation is that a demand of Rs.50,000/- was being made in dowry; kerosene oil was poured on her twice or thrice by applicant and on one such occasion, when he tried to immolate her after pouring kerosene, she was saved by her sister Devna. It is also claimed that the applicant had caused injury to Devna when she tried to protect the complainant Bhavna. It is revealed by this witness that after the incident, she went to Betul and reported the matter to police. When cross-examined on these points, she has revealed that the incident of pouring kerosene last occurred in the year 1999 and after this incident, settlement was arrived at between them and she had gone back to her matrimonial house. It is further revealed by complainant wife-Bhavna (P.W.1) that she then stayed with applicant in Damua for a year where other family members of applicant were not residing and from Damua, she finally came to her parents house along with her father.

9. These statements reveal that the incident of pouring kerosene was of the year 1999 and complainant finally came back to her parents house in the year 2001. No medical examination was held to find out the truth of claims made by wife-Bhavna regarding injury caused to Devna and pouring kerosene on Bhavna. Thus, it can be inferred that the FIR regarding the incident of pouring kerosene was lodged with a delay of more than one year with no corroborative medical evidence.

10. It is relevant to discuss here the statements of Devna (P.W.4) who was allegedly present at the time of incident of pouring kerosene and allegedly intervened in the incident. Her statements do not reveal the period of alleged incident. She has claimed that after the incident, she and her sister spent the night in the house of applicant and left it next morning, went to her relative's house and then came to the parental house. She has denied that any settlement

was arrived at after this incident between applicant and his wife. Her statements suggest that the incident of pouring kerosene was the last episode whereafter complainant never resided with applicant. Thus, her statements are stark contradiction with the statements of complainant Bhavna (P.W.1)

11. Father of applicant is Daulat Rao (P.W.3). He claims that applicant had poured kerosene oil on complainant Bhavna, thereafter Bhavna came to his house and stopped going to the house of applicant. It has also been revealed by this witness that applicant had deserted the complainant in Damua. According to him, a settlement was arrived at, after the episode of pouring kerosene and complainant lived with applicant in Damua where this incident of desertion took place.

1 2 . In contradiction to these statements, the mother of complainant, namely Munia Bai (P.W.2), has claimed that complainant never went back to the house of applicant after the episode of pouring kerosene.She has also denied the fact that any settlement was arrived at between the parties after the incident of pouring kerosene. She has also denied the suggestion that complainant under that settlement lived with the applicant for some time.

13. Thus, the statements of these interested witnesses reveal that there is material contradiction in their statements about the number of occasions when the complaint was made to the police; whether complainant settled the dispute with the applicant and re-started living with him; whether complainant was ever ill-treated by applicant after the alleged episode of pouring the kerosene. The period of incident of pouring kerosene and attempt to immolate the complainant is also not very specifically proved.

14. Wife-Bhavna (P.W.1) in her examination-in-chief says that she was

treated well for six months after the marriage but in cross-examination she claims that this period was for six to seven years after the marriage. Munia Bai, the mother of complainant (P.W.2), says that after the birth of three children to complainant information about her ill-treatment was received. Daulat Rao (P.W.3), the father of complainant, says that two girls were born within six years and complainant was treated properly till six years. Devna (P.W.4) says that applicant was good to complainant only for one year after the marriage. Thus, statements of these witnesses are again not uniform about the period from where the ill-treatment of complainant started.

1 5 . According to wife-Bhavna (P.W.1), there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- and she has claimed that her father had given Rs.1,65,000/- to applicant and his family members for depositing the instalment of tractor and for purchase of property. Whether the demand of Rs.50,000/- was besides the payment of Rs.1,65,000/- or was it an initial demand which was satisfied by payment of Rs.1,65,000/- is an unexplained fact. Her statements in para 12

seem to be very unreliable. She says that applicant was sometimes demanding Rs.10,000/-, sometimes Rs.20,000/- and he never said that he needs Rs.1,00,000/-. She further claims that Rs.3,00,000/- was demanded at the time of purchasing the land. Again, rebutting it, she says that Rs.1,50,000/- was demanded. Thus, her court testimony on the fact of demand was very unstable. Further, it is not revealed in her police statement, marked as Ex.D-3, that Rs.1,65,000/- was ever given by her father.

16. Munia Bai, the mother of complainant, says that Rs.1,50,000/- was given four years after the marriage for purchase of land. The entire statement of this witness does not reveal whether this amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on the basis of any demand made by the applicant and, if yes, who demanded this

money, who made the payment and in whose presence this payment was made are some unanswered facts.

17. Daulat Rao (P.W.3), who must have made payment to the applicant against his demand for dowry, has claimed that Rs.3,00,000/- was being demanded against which he made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. Demand of Rs.3,00,000/- is not mentioned in the police statement of this witness, marked as Ex.D-2.

18. What amount was paid to applicant against his demand for dowry is not disclosed by Devna (P.W.4). She has merely claimed that Rs.50,000/- were being demanded by applicant.

19. These statements reveal that complainant and her relatives are not consistent about the amount, which was being demanded by applicant and also on the amount that was paid to him against this demand.

20. Statements of prosecution witnesses are also inconsistent on the point whether any dowry was demanded by applicant prior to marriage. Mother Munia Bai (P.W.2) says that 2-3 days prior to marriage, a demand was made for Rs.50,000/- and this amount was paid to applicant and his father in the presence of Chamanlal before solemnizing the marriage. Chamanlal is not examined in this case. Father of complainant, Daulat Rao (P.W.3), who must have been a party to the negotiation of marriage, claims that at the time of marriage, he willingly made payment of Rs.50,000/- upon his self-inspiration and no demand was made by applicant or his father, nor any payment was made to them in the presence of Chamanlal. Thus, again the statements of parents of complainant are contradictory.

21. The above analysis of evidence discloses that the interested witnesses

of prosecution, who are also the close relatives, have failed to give a reliable and consistent version. Their statements have been contradictory to each other on material points. The FIR appears to be highly belated and the independent witnesses, namely Munnalal (P.W.6) and Sunil (P.W.7), have failed to give any corroboration to prosecution story.

2 2 . Upon this appreciation of evidence, the finding of conviction recorded by courts below for the offence of Section 498-A of IPC against the applicant does not appear to be sustainable on facts. Therefore, this criminal revision is allowed and the applicant is acquitted.

23. The applicant is on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged and the fine amount, if any, paid by the applicant be refunded to him.

24. A copy of this order be sent to the courts below along with their records for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps

Date: 2023.12.19 17:54:41 +05'30'