Raghuveer Rathore vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 880 MP

                                  1
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                    ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 162 of 2005

BETWEEN:-
RAGHUVEER RATHORE S/O GOPI RATHORE, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER, R/O
GULAB KA PURA , AMBAH ,
AT PRESENT R/O SUBHASH NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                               .....APPELLANT
(SHRI MK.CHOUDHARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND
THE STATE OF M.P. INCHARGE P.S. KOTWALI (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENT
(SHRI NAVAL KISHOR GUPTA, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
THE STATE)

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

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/02/2005 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.284/2001, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant- accused under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced him to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC only with default stipulations.

Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that on the information of

District Hospital Morena that deceased Rani wife of Raghuveer was brought dead, on account of which, merg bearing no.43/2008 was recorded. Dead body panchnama was prepared and it was sent for post-mortem and as per post- mortem report, the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Merg was enquired. During merg enquiry, the statements of witnesses were recorded. They have alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant. The family members of the appellant used to demand motorcycle and Colour TV from the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, they used to treat her with cruelty, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide in suspicious circumstances. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against

the appellant and her Taau and Taai because the appellant was adopted by them after death of his parents. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted.

Learned trial Court by its impugned order acquitted the co-accused Rambeti and Bhagirath and convicted the present appellant for the offence under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC and he has been sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC only. The learned trial court in its para-38 of the judgment categorically discussed the evidence of prosecution and came to the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that soon before the death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demand.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the present appellant is husband of the deceased. Marriage between present appellant/accused and deceased was solemnized three years prior to the date of incident. It is further submitted that in the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is

nowhere proved that whether the appellant instigated the deceased for suicide or he was engaged in any conspiracy of abetment to suicide due to demand of dowry. As the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients and there is no admissible evidence sufficient to convict the appellant for the charges under Section 306 of IPC, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant. Hence, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges by allowing this appeal.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the appeal argued that the judgment is well founded. There is no scope for interference. There is sufficient evidence regarding cruelty committed by the appellant and in the light of such cruelty and harassment meted out to deceased, the appeal may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.

In the present case, suicidal death by the deceased due to hanging on account of demand of dowry is not substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. Even otherwise, from perusal of evidence, it is established that deceased committed suicide on 05/07/2001 at about 8:50 a.m. in the morning by hanging. It is also not disputed that she was married to accused- Raghuveer Rathore three years prior to her death.

In order to convict the appellant, prosecution is required to prove any of

the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC and Section 306 of IPC which reads as under:-

"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if

an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; o r Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

By a close scrutiny of entire evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, prosecution has failed to prove the offence before the trial Court. Hence, it may not be held that the appellant is guilty for abetment of suicide of Rani. His conviction under Section 306 of IPC is not maintainable but on the other hand whatever came against the appellant goes to show that Rani was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Though, the suicide may not be direct or indirect outcome of such cruelty, but the cruelty is independent offence and for which the appellant may be convicted as this is a lesser offence and connected also for the reduction of conviction.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of IPC. Instead he is convicted for a lesser offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

So far as sentence under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, for about two years, the appellant remained in jail. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to sentence the appellant for the period already undergone by him. Hence, the appellant is sentenced under Section 498-A of IPC for the period already undergone by him.

It is stated that the appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender his bail bonds. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2023.01.20 11:11:15 +05'30'