Amar Singh vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1068 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                     ON THE 18 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 157 of 2004

BETWEEN:-
AMAR SINGH S/O HEERALAL KORI R/O WARD 13,
POLICE STATION GORMI DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                                 .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI M.KULSHRESTHA - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ARAKSHI
KENDRA DEHAT DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

      Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Appellant Amar Singh, who is distant relative of deceased, being

aggrieved by the judgment passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in ST No. 679/2000 on 23.02.2004, by which he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC for 2 years of RI with fine of Rs.1000 and 7 years of RI with fine of Rs.5000, has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.

Undisputed facts of the case are that marriage of deceased Mangla was solemnized on 29.06.1999, who died on 03.06.2000 within one year of her marriage. Appellant is in distant relation with father-in-law of the deceased. Case

of the prosecution is that on 03.06.2000, Son of Harvilas namely, Suresh gave information to Police Station Dehat, Bhind that when deceased Mangla Bai was cooking food, she was burnt and died on the spot. On this information, Merg No.34/2000 was recorded. Merg was enquired. During Merg enquiry, dead body panchnama of the deceased was prepared. Thereafter, dead body was sent for post-mortem. As per post-mortem report, she died due to burn injuries. Statements of relative of maternal side were recorded in which they alleged that husband and in-laws of the deceased used to harass her, due to which, she died by burning in suspicious circumstances. Thereafter, on 21.06.2000 offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 bearing crime No.232/2000 was

registered at Police Station Dehat, Bhind against husband of the deceased Ramendra, Jeth, Jethani, mother-in-law, father-in-law of the deceased and Amar Singh, who is Bhanja of father-in-law of the deceased. Amar Singh was earlier absconded. After his arrest, charge-sheet has been filed against him. After trial, he was convicted under Sections 498-A , 304-B of IPC for 2 years, 7 years respectively.

Coordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 05.07.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 350/2002 allowed the appeal filed by Harvilas and others, including husband of the deceased Ramendra and acquitted them of the charges of 498-A and 304-B. Appellant Amar Singh filed this appeal on the ground that he was not residing with the deceased. Deceased alongwith her in-laws used to reside at village Kushmar whereas present appellant Amar Singh used to reside in Gormi which is a distant place. During evidence, mother of the deceased Shyam Kunwar (PW-3) has stated that deceased Mangla was his daughter who was married to Ramendra. As per their capacity, they solemnized their marriage. After marriage, appellant and other relatives used to demand motorcycle. When

her daughter returned to her maternal house, she complaint that on the demand of motorcycle, in-laws used to harass her.

She told his son Ram Naresh about the aforesaid facts. When deceased had gone to her in-laws house, she was fine. She went to her in-laws house alongwith Ganga Ram. Accused person killed her daughter.

O n appellant's demand, she gave buffalo. After the death of the deceased, he used to threaten her to compromise the matter. During cross- examination, she has admitted that after one year of death of her husband, marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Ramendra. At the time of marriage, no dowry was demanded. Police never enquired from her about the incident, only her thumb impression was taken. Appellant is not real Jeth of the deceased. In-laws of the deceased never committed marpeet with her daughter. She never complaint against in-laws. Appellant resides at Gormi.

Looking to the evidence came in examination in-chief and admitted facts during cross-examination, it is evidently clear that appellant resides separately at Gormi, he is having no direct relationship with other co-accused, in-laws of the deceased never committed marpeet with the decease and no complaint was lodged earlier. In this situation, on the basis of evidence of mother of the deceased, no adverse inference can be drawn against present appellant.

Likewise, another witness Ram Sakhi (PW-4), who is sister of the

deceased, has stated that she could not attend the marriage of her sister. She reached on the next day, at that time, she got information that husband of the deceased is demanding motorcycle. Afterwards, her brother Ram Naresh came from Neemuch on leave and called all the three sisters, at that time, deceased complaint that in-laws used to harass her on demand of motorcycle. Ram Sakhi

has further stated that appellant is some relative of Raghvendra. She had seen the dead-body of the deceased in hospital. During cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not earlier seen the appellant. Police never enquired from him nor took any statement. Deceased has told her that other in-laws used to demand motorcycle, but appellant has never demanded motorcycle. Beside this, she has not stated anything against the present appellant so that any adverse inference could be drawn against appellant.

As per evidence of Dr. Ravindra Chaudhry (PW-5), he conducted post- mo rtem and as per his opinion, the deceased died due to burn injury. Postmortem report is Ex.P-4. D Gyandas (PW-1) and Shersingh (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case.

Ramnaresh (PW-9), brother of the deceased, has stated that present appellant used to tell the deceased that if she wants to live comfortably, then ask her brother to give motorcycle. As he could not arrange for the motorcycle, appellant and other family member killed her. During cross-examination, he has admitted that Amar Singh was not a middle man when marriage was fixed, nor any talk took place with him.

Likewise, his wife Savita (PW-10) also alleged omnibus allegation against husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and jeth that they used to harass the deceased on demand of motorcycle. Appellant is also involved in the murder of Mangla. During cross-examination, she has admitted that appellant's name was informed by her husband. In her police statement (Ex.P-5), she has not mentioned that appellant asked the deceased to bring motorcycle, otherwise he would kill her. Amar Singh is resident of Gormi.

M.L.Dhodi (PW-11), the then SHO of police Station Dehat, has stated

that he enquired Merg no. 34/20 recorded at Dehat, Bhind, and thereafter, registered an FIR (Ex.P-12).

As per Manoj Kumar Singh (PW-8), he conducted investigation, during which he recorded statements of the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet. Merg information was lodged by Suresh. During Merg enquiry, he has not interrogated anything from Suresh. Witnesses Shyam Kumar has not stated in her police statement (Ex.D/3) that on demand of motorcycle in-laws used to commit Marpeet with the deceased.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case came on record, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that due to demand of motorcycle appellant used to treat the deceased cruelly and due to which, she died in suspicion of circumstances within 7 years of her marriage. Learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 498-A and 304- of IPC. Hence, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of the trial Court is set aside and appellant is acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A & 304-B of IPC. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Adnan

MADHU Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASAD DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,

SOODAN st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d6b55bd7b8b095e45b0d58a876e9dd05 7f98aa4a26968acc4ea58035d05b0084, pseudonym=21DE0DCEA1B5577FE9666E96A639 DACD88861D95,

PRASAD serialNumber=DE0210C75DA91FC2450CFA0F069 0B6A99A0171130FC18D279EADF9DF4DBD2F58, cn=MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2023.01.19 17:18:08 +05'30'