Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028/1997 Manot Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Ranjan Banerjee, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT
(Delivered on the 28th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.5.1997 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.337 of 1996 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine one years simple imprisonment in addition.
2. Prosecution's case in short is that on 23.4.1996, at about 4.30-6.00 p.m, the deceased Savita wife of the appellant Manot had committed suicide in her house situated at Kumhar Mohalla in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Garha, Jabalpur. Police prepared a panchanama of lash and sent the dead body of 2 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 the deceased Sarita for the post mortem. Dr. Sehgal (PW5) performed the postmortem on her body and gave his report Ex.P/ 4. He found that the deceased died due to hanging. On investigation it was found that the deceased was dealt with cruelty and harassed by the appellant in such a manner so that she committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the ACJM, Jabalpur who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Jabalpur and ultimately it was transferred to VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that he kept his wife with comfort and he did not knot as to why she committed suicide. In defence Halki Bai (DW1) and Bari Bai (DW2) were examined to show the relations of the deceased and the appellant.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 304-B of the I.P.C but, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. After death of the deceased her parents and relatives did not make any complaint about any dowry demand or harassment but, after some time they cooked a case against the appellant. Therefore, it is 3 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 prayed that the appellant may be acquitted. It is prayed in the alternate that the applicant has faced the trial and appeal for more than 15 years and therefore, he may not be sent to the jail again.
7. On the other hand the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Sections 306 or 304-B of I.P.C. No interference is required in the findings directed by the trial Court.
8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it is to be considered as to whether the appellant can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and whether sentence awarded can be reduced ?.
9. Shanti Bai (PW1) mother of the deceased, Prahlad (PW2) father of the deceased and Jagannath (PW3) cousin of the deceased, were examined as the witnesses relating to the information given by the deceased to them. All the three witnesses did not allege anything against the appellant relating to dowry demand but, they have stated that the appellant was in habit to assault the deceased after consuming some liquor. Such type of omnibus allegations are made against the appellant but, in the cross examination several contradictions arose in the statements of these witnesses. No FIR was lodged during the life time of the deceased against the appellant about that harassment or trouble. No Panchayat took place for such a dispute between the deceased and her husband. The witnesses have accepted that they deposed before the Police soon after the death of the 4 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 deceased and then 15 days after her death they again gave their statement before the Police. Previous statements of the witnesses taken during the merg inquiry were not produced before the Court and therefore, it cannot be said that those statements were same as given by these witnesses after 15 days.
10. Looking to the evidence of the witnesses Shanti Bai (PW1), Prahlad (PW2) and Jagannath (PW3) it appears that the relation of the parents of the deceased were good with the parents of the appellants. Shanti Bai and Prahlad met with the parents of the appellant in a marriage and nothing adverse was noticed at that time whereas the deceased was found hanged on the next day of that marriage. Shanti Bai, Prahlad and Jagannath have stated that the deceased Savita was detained in the house of her parents for few days because the appellant was assaulting her but, the duration of that detention is different in the statements of all these three witnesses. Shanti Bai admits that the deceased Savita was detained in her parents house for 15 days and thereafter, when the appellant assured that he will keep their daughter with comfort then the deceased Savita was sent, whereas, Jagannath has stated that the deceased was detained for two months and when she was sent to the house of the appellant she died within 15 days. He has further added that the deceased was sent to the house of the appellant because the father of the appellant came to bring the deceased and on his assurance deceased was sent back to the appellant's house. Under such circumstances, there are lot of contradictions between the 5 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 evidence of Shanti Bai (PW1) and Jagannath (PW3) relating to duration in which the deceased lived in the house of Shanti Bai and to the fact that who, came to take the deceased after that detention period. If it was the appellant who took his wife then statement given by the witness Jagannath (PW3) appears to be false and if it was the father of the appellant who, brought the deceased then the statement of the witness Shanti Bai (PW1) appears to be false.
11. Both of the witnesses have accepted that the deceased was detained soon after the incident when she delivered a child who died 15 days after the delivery, whereas Prahlad (PW2) has accepted that after death of her child the deceased came for 2-3 times to his house and returned back. The evidence given by the witness Prahlad indicates that the deceased was never detained in his house for any reason and therefore, the fact relating to detention of the deceased due to the harassment done by the appellant appears to be false and concocted. The witnesses have stated that the appellant kept the deceased with comfort for one year and thereafter, he was assaulting the deceased but, if the appellant was assaulting the deceased and she was kept in her parents house to protest about the behaviour of the appellant then why such fact is not confirmed by the witness Prahlad (PW2), father of the deceased. Shanti Bai (PW1) and Jagannath (PW3) have stated that the deceased was not unhappy due to death of her child but, the witness Prahlad has accepted that the deceased was much unhappy due to death of her child. She was taken to her 6 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 parents house for 2-3 times after death of her child but, her sorrow could not be distinguished. Under such circumstances, it appears that the witnesses are telling in omnibus manner with a cooked story that the appellant was assaulting the deceased after consuming the liquor.
12. Shanti Bai (PW1) has accepted that one day prior to the death of he daughter, Jagannath went to the house of the deceased Savita and he found that she was all right. She had no grievance with the appellant whereas the witness Jagannath has stated that the deceased complained about the assault on that day. However, in his case diary statement Ex.D/2 Jagannath has accepted that one day prior to her death she did not say anything against the appellant and he did not state before the Police that the appellant was in habit of assaulting his wife after consuming the liquor.
13. If the evidence adduced by Shanti Bai, Prahlad and Jagannath is considered simultaneously then it would be apparent that in first year of her marriage the deceased was kept with comfort. No specific allegation was made for the second year prior to the pregnancy of the deceased. During the pregnancy it is no where alleged that the appellant assaulted the deceased when she was pregnant. A boy was born to the deceased 3-4 months prior to her death and after 15 days of his birth he had passed away and therefore, only a period of last three months remains for the consideration for harassment to the deceased by the appellant but, looking to the evidence given by Prahlad (PW2) 7 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 father of the deceased, the deceased came to his house for 2-3 times and went to her husband's house. The story that she was detained in the house of her father due to ill treatment of the appellant was not found correct. Shanti Bai and Jagannath are telling a false hood about that fact. Also these witnesses kept silence for 15 days after death of the deceased. They did not say anything about the appellant's behaviour towards the deceased, soon after her death. After 15 days of her death omnibus allegations were made against the appellant but, looking to the contradictions between the evidence of Shanti Bai and Jagannath such allegations could not be proved beyond doubt. Under such circumstances, the single allegation that the appellant was in habit to assault his wife after consuming liquor was not proved beyond doubt and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant did any cruelty with his wife or harassed her so that she could commit suicide. Under such circumstances, no overt act of the appellant is proved beyond doubt by which it can be said that he committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. The trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C 14.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable and therefore, it is accepted. The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges appended against him. He will be entitled to get the fine 8 Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 1997 amount back if he has already deposited the same.
15. Presence of the appellant is no more required before this Court therefore, it is directed that the bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.
16. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 28 8.2012 bina