Jitendra Kumar vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 5231 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                              ON THE 29 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 625 of 2003

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    JITENDRA KUMAR S/O RAMBHAROSA BHARGAV,
                                AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
                                KARUA P.S. BHATARWAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MANISH     @    BANTI   S/O   RAMBHAROSE
                                BHARGAVA,    AGED     ABOUT    23  YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: NA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARUA
                                P.S. BHITARWAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANTS
                          (SHRI RAJ KUMAR GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)

                          AND
                          STATE OF M.P. IN CHARGE P.S. BHATARWAR, DISTRICT
                          GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                          ( SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT- STATE AND SHRI R.C.BHARGAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL
                          FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

                                Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                         JUDGMENT

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-09-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 420 of 2002, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven-seven Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/29/2023 7:10:49 PM

years rigorous imprisonment and not sentenced them separately under Section 498-A of IPC.

It is not out of place to mention here that connected Criminal Appeal No.543 of 2003 filed by the father-in-law of deceased, namely, Rambharosa has been abated as dismissed vide order dated 23-02-2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court on account of death of Rambharosa on 06-08-2017.

So far as appellant No.1 Jitendra Kumar who is the husband of deceased is concerned, an intimation dated 01-07-2022 has been received from the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Dabra, District Gwalior mentioning the fact that appellant No.1 Jitendra Kumar has already suffered the jail sentence awarded by

the trial Court and therefore, he has been released. Accordingly, his appeal has become infructuous.

Now, this Court thinks appropriate to decide the appeal of appellant No.2 Manish alias Banti who is the brother-in-law of deceased on merits after hearing learned counsel for the parties.

In brief, prosecution case is that on 15-08-2002, at around 01:00 in the night, Rambharosa, father-in-law of deceased Hemlata gave an information to the police stating therein that his daughter-in-law Hemlata was sleeping in the room of first floor of his house and small children were sleeping on the ground floor. When his daughter Sangeeta went there to wake up deceased by giving an alarm, the deceased did not give any reply and thereafter, she informed that deceased is not speaking anything. Then through torch light he went there and saw that deceased is no more and she has committed suicide by hanging herself. On the basis of such information, merg no.27 of 2002 under Section 174 of CrPC was recorded. Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/29/2023 7:10:49 PM

prepared and thereafter, it was sent for postmortem and as per postmortem report, the deceased died due to asphyxia within 24 hours of the postmortem examination. Merg was enquired and during merg enquiry, statements of maternal side of deceased were recorded in which they alleged that appellant no.2 Manish alias Banti (brother-in-law of deceased), Rambharosa (father-in-law of deceased), appellant no.1 Jitendra Kumar (husband of deceased) and Baijanti Bai (mother-in-law of deceased) used to demand Rs.1 lac and due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry, they used to make her with cruelty as a result of which deceased committed suicide. The marriage of deceased was solemnized more than four years back. On 15-08-2002 at around 10:00 in the night, report vide Ex.P20 was lodged at Crime 155/2002 for commission of offence under Sections 498-A,304-B of IPC. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before competent Court from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as exhibited documents, the trial Court found the present appellant guilty of aforesaid offence and sentenced accordingly, as mentioned above.

It is contended by Shri Goyal that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The marriage of deceased was solemnized with appellant No.1 Jitendra Kumar on 18-06-1998

and she died on 14-08-2002 within four years of her marriage. Prior to her death, neither the deceased nor her parents had lodged any report regarding ill- treatment with deceased due to demand of dowry. Spot map, dead body panchnama and postmortem were conducted in the presence of parents of the deceased. Uncle of deceased Narendra Mishra (PW10) and Keshav (PW12) did not support the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. There are Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/29/2023 7:10:49 PM

material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment passed by trial Court and the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the findings arrived at by the Trial Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record and also gone through the evidence of following material witnesses.

Mother of deceased Sushila Bai (PW-4), brother of deceased Sanjay (PW-5) and father of deceased Kishan Lal (PW-8) in their statements alleged that after solemnization of marriage of deceased, her brother-in-law (devar) present appellant No.2 Manish alias Banti, husband of deceased Jitendra Kumar, father-in-law Rambharosa and mother-in-law of deceased Baijanti Bai used to treat the deceased with cruelty in regard to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.1 lac. When the deceased made a compliant about it, her parents took back the deceased to her parental house and thereafter on the request of the in-laws of deceased, they sent deceased to her inlaws house and 15 days thereafter deceased committed suicide. During the cross-examination of these witnesses, they admitted that the marriage of deceased was solemnized on 18th June, 1998, i.e. four years back.

From the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that previously no complaint was made in regard to demand of dowry either by deceased or by

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/29/2023 7:10:49 PM

her parents or at the time of preparation of Panchnama of dead body of deceased. Only on the basis of omnibus allegations, after death of deceased, in- laws of deceased have been implicated. From the evidence of brother of deceased Sanjay (PW5), it i clear that he has not named or alleged anything against present appellant Manish alias Banti in regard to demand of dowry or cruelty with the deceased. Further, uncle of deceased Narendra Mishra (PW10) and Keshav (PW12) have not supported the prosecution case, despite prosecution has produced these witnesses as eye-witnesses that they had seen the deceased weeping in the room soon before the alleged offence was committed. During Panchnama of dead body of deceased, the father of deceased Kishan Lal (PW8) as well as other relatives of deceased were present and they have not alleged anything against the present appellant nor any FIR/report was lodged after death of the deceased. After receiving information from the father-in-law of deceased Rambharosa, the police reached the spot and in the presence of father and brother of deceased, the doors of the room was removed in which the deceased was found hanging herself. The appellants have been falsely implicated after three days of the alleged incident.

In the light of the above, there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record which proves guilt of present appellant Manish alias Banti. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of appellant 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 appellant. The learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the impuggned judgment of conviction and sentence against the present appellant for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed so far as it relates to appellant No.2 Manish Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/29/2023 7:10:49 PM

alias Banti. He is acquitted of charge levelled against him.

It is reported that appellant No.2 Manish alias Banti is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

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

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/29/2023 7:10:49 PM