Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shantibai @ Shantobai Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 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 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6824 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHANTIBAI @ SHANTOBAI LODHI, W/O SHRI
TARAPAT LODHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O VILLAGE THAMI P.S.
THEMI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION THEMI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI )
Heard on : 24.11.2023
Pronounced on: 29.11.2023
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment delivered in
Sessions Trial No.340/2017 on 9.11.2021 by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, for
holding the appellant guilty of offence of Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of
IPC as well as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing her for ten
years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence of Section
304-B of IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with a direction to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment of six months and three months respectively,
in case of non-payment of fine.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant is admittedly
the mother-in-law of deceased Rajni Bai, who was married to the son of
appellant on 13.7.2016 and died on 24.9.2017 after consuming some poisonous
substance. It is claimed by the prosecution that the father of deceased had
spent almost rupees one and a half lacs in her marriage, still the appellant and
other family members used to harass and behave cruelly to the deceased; their
demand was for a motorcycle and additional cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Being harassed by this cruelty for demand of dowry, victim Rajni Bai
consumed some poisonous substance on 23.9.2017. She was taken to the
hospital for treatment where her dying declaration was recorded in which she
narrated the cruel behaviour of appellant for dowry demand. Rajni Bai died on
24.9.2017 during her treatment. A Marg intimation was registered and the
inquiry was conducted. On the basis of facts revealed during inquiry, FIR was
registered. FSL report was received, other necessary investigation was
undertaken and the charge-sheet was filed. In the trial held, a compromise was
reached between the family members of deceased and the appellant and co-
accused persons, which was dismissed. Upon conclusion of trial, appellant was
held guilty and sentenced as aforesaid while three other persons, namely Rohit
Lodhi, Ajay alias Ajju Lodhi and Tarapati Lodhi, who were respectively the
husband, brother-in-law and the father-in-law of deceased were acquitted by the
learned trial court.
3 . The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the judgment of
conviction is not based upon correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law;
the trial court failed to see that there were serious contradictions and omissions
in the evidence led by prosecution; the judgment of conviction is not sustainable
for being bad in law and for not giving proper consideration to the defence of
appellant. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence
be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
4. State has opposed the present appeal on the ground that there was
sufficient evidence available on the record of trial court to prove the crime of
appellant, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal and the same
should be dismissed.
5. Both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.
6. In this case, deceased Rajni Bai died within a year and three months
from her date of marriage i.e. 13.7.2016 as her date of death is 24.9.2017. The
prosecution case is that the appellant was treating the deceased with cruelty for
demand of dowry, on account of which deceased consumed poison on
23.9.2017 and died on 24.9.2017 resulting into her dowry death. Although three
other family members of appellant, namely her son Rohit Lodhi to whom the
deceased was married; her younger son Ajay alias Ajju Lodhi and her husband
Tarapati Lodhi were also arrayed as accused before the trial court and faced the
trial but under the impugned judgment, they all were acquitted. Appellant was
the sole convict in the matter.
7. The prosecution case was primarily based on the dying declaration of
deceased recorded during her treatment in the hospital and the police statements
of the members of her maternal family and other related witnesses. The post-
mortem of body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashok Najan (P.W.12)
and he found no injuries or injury marks on the body of deceased. His post-
mortem report is marked as Ex.P-30. The viscera of deceased was sent for
chemical examination to FSL, Sagar, from where report, marked as Ex.P-34, is
received and it was found that zinc phosphide was present in the viscera
material. Thus, it is proved that deceased Rajni Bai died of consuming poison
and she was not physically assaulted before her death.
8. Gudda Lodhi (P.W.1) is the father of deceased, Tulsa Bai (P.W.2) is
t h e mother of deceased, Rahul Patel (P.W.4) is the younger brother of
deceased while Hakim Singh (P.W.3) is the real uncle of deceased. Further, her
real sister Ram Bai alias Jiji Bai has been examined as P.W.11 and Ravi Shankar
Pathak (P.W.14) is the resident of locality where the maternal family of
deceased resides. Hemant Lodhi (P.W.15) is the relative of appellant. Reference
of these witnesses has been collectively made here for the simple reason that
they all have been declared hostile by the prosecution itself. According to these
witnesses, deceased never complained to any of them regarding demand of
dowry being made by the appellant or the cruelty committed by her against
deceased in context of this demand. Prosecution asked leading questions and
gave suggestions to these witnesses but they failed to support the prosecution
story to the least. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no evidence available
on the basis of testimony of these witnesses that the deceased was being ill-
treated by the appellant during her lifetime or immediately before her death in
context of demand of dowry.
9. Now, the next piece of evidence that needs to be evaluated is the dying
declaration of deceased Rajni Bai. Dr. Bhupendra Singh (P.W.6) has disclosed
in his testimony that the victim was not in good condition when she was
brought to the hospital but at 9:50 p.m. on the same day, he certified that the
victim was fit enough to give dying declaration. According to him, the victim
was again examined by him at 10:10 p.m., once her dying declaration was
complete. He again found that victim was in conscious state at the time of
giving dying declaration. His report is marked on Ex.P-14, which is the dying
declaration of deceased. Smt. Maryada Bagde, Naib Tahsildar (P.W.7)
recorded the dying declaration of deceased.
10. In her dying declaration, marked as Ex.P-14, deceased had revealed
that she had a dispute with the appellant at around 4:00 p.m. on the date of
incident i.e. 23.9.2017 and the reason for this dispute was the amount which
was promised to be paid at the time of "lagun". According to victim, appellant
was insisting that Rs.10,000/- were promised at that time but the father of
deceased had paid only Rs.5,000/-. This dying declaration reflects that the
deceased and the appellant were having persistent dispute on this issue. It was
claimed by the deceased that anguished by this dispute, she consumed two
packets of "rat-kill". It is further disclosed by her that she was seen vomiting by
her husband and father, they understood the matter and brought the deceased to
t h e hospital by arranging Marshal vehicle. A question was asked whether
somebody administered the poison by force or fraud but the answer to this
question was in negative. It was, thus, specifically mentioned by the deceased
that she had dispute with the appellant, who also threatened her not to speak a
word to anyone about it. According to deceased, her husband, father-in-law
and brother-in-law are good persons.
11 . On the basis of this statement made by deceased in her dying
declaration, it appears that the only dispute between her and the appellant was
regarding the amount promised by the father of deceased at the time of "lagun"
and for this, they were having strained relationship resulting into repeated
disputes. The dying declaration does not refer to any other cause of dispute
between the two. In context of this allegation, the statements of family members
of deceased have been examined. It is relevant that the parents, the brother, the
sister and the uncle examined by the prosecution have failed to make any
allegation that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by groom's side at the
time of settling the marriage. They have also failed to prove that Rs.10,000/-
was promised to be paid to the in-laws of deceased at the time of "lagun". They
have also failed to make any disclosure that against the promised amount of
Rs.10,000/-, only Rs.5,000/- were paid and for this, appellant was mal-treating
or harassing the deceased. Therefore, the allegations made by the deceased in
her dying declaration have not found any factual support from the testimony of
her relatives.
12. The dying declaration, Ex.P-14, though claims that deceased was
having repeated quarrel with the appellant but acrimonious relationship is not
sufficient to prove the allegations of dowry harassment or dowry death. The
entire dying declaration does not reveal the mode and extent of cruelty that was
being meted out to the deceased by the appellant. Without there being any
details about the alleged cruelty, no inference can be drawn that the deceased
was left with no other option but to commit suicide or the extent of cruelty was
so grave as to drive her to commit suicide. Resultantly, the allegations of dowry
demand, harassment for demand of dowry, abetting the commission of suicide
and causing dowry death do not stand proved against the appellant.
13. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant under Sections 304-B, 306
and 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside and
appellant is acquitted of all the charges. She is in custody. She be released
forthwith. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant be refunded to
her.
14. Let the copy of judgment along with its record be sent to the trial
court for information and compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.11.30 14:28:52 +05'30'
