Cr.A. No.1227/1998 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 1998 ....APPELLANTS:
1. Jawaharlal s/o Ramkripal, Cultivator 2. Mst. Ram Kunwar w/o Jawaharlal Both R/o village Mutwa, P.S. Singhpur, Dist. Satna -Versus- ....RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Amit Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
{ 06-11-2012 } Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.5.1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No.65/1996 convicting the appellants under Section 498-A IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-; in default of fine further R.I. for 6 months each, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since the same have been elaborately mentioned in para 2 and 3 of the impugned Cr.A. No.1227/1998 -2- judgment and for convenience they are not required to be narrated here. However, it would be appropriate to mention here that the appellants who are the Jeth and Jethani (husband's elder brother and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased). Indeed, the present appellants and Shivnarayan were tried for the charges punishable under Section 306 and 498-A IPC. Learned Trial Court however acquitted Shivnarayan but the present appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A IPC, although they have been acquitted from the charge under Section 306 IPC.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire endeavour which has been put forth by the prosecution witnesses in their testimony is that because appellants were not giving share to the husband of the deceased, therefore, she committed the suicide. Learned counsel submits that since from the charge under Section 306 IPC appellants have been acquitted, merely because the appellants were not giving share of deceased's husband it cannot be said that their act would come within the ambit and sweep of Section 498-A IPC and hence it has been prayed that this appeal be allowed and impugned judgment be set aside and the appellants be acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A IPC.
4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Cr.A. No.1227/1998 -3- 6. So far as the charge under Section 306 IPC is concerned, the learned Trial Court has already acquitted the appellants from the said charge. The husband of the deceased, namely, Vinot was examined as PW-4 and according to him the appellants were not giving any share in the property owned by the family and were denying his right. Similar type of statement is of the parents of the deceased namely Biharilal (PW-2) and Triveni (PW-3) who are her father and mother. According to me, even if the appellants were not giving share to the husband of the deceased Vinot Kumar (PW-4) their act would not come within the ambit and sweep of Section 498-A IPC and therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 498-A IPC.
7. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and appellants are acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A IPC. The amount of fine if deposited, be refunded to them. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE S/