Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2605/2005 Appellants:
1. Manoj Sahu, s/o Leeladhar Sahu aged- 26 years residing near Shankar Mandir, Suraj Ganj Itarsi, District Hoshangabad 2. Shanti Bai w/o Leeladhar Sahu aged- 55 years residing near Shankar Mandir, Suraj Ganj Itarsi, District Hoshangabad 3. Vijaya @ Vijaylata, w/o Ramesh Kumar Sahu aged- 36 years resident of A-type, 402, New Colony, S.P.N., District Hoshangabad Vs. Respondents: State of M.P. For the appellants : Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Shivam Singh, Advocate For the respondent: Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate For the Objector : Shri A.K.Tiwari, Advocate ****** Present: HON. SHRI JUSTICE B. D. RATHI ****** JUDGMENT
(8.10.13) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.12.2005 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No.322/2001, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Code' for short) whereby they have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine stipulation and R.I. for 2 years with fine stipulation respectively. Marriage of Reeta (since deceased) was solemnized Cr.A. No.2605/05 2 with appellant no.1 Manoj on 21/4/2000 and the remaining appellants are his family members. Reeta died on 31/5/2001.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellants were involved in subjecting Reeta to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry, and, ultimately, on 31/5/2001, under suspicious circumstances, she breathed her last and cause of death was ascertained as asphyxia in the post mortem report (Ex.P/10), wherein as many as 4 injuries were also noticed on her palms and one on chin. As per report (Ex.P/17) dated 29/11/01 of Forensic Science Lab, Organo Phosphorous pesticide was found in the viscera of the deceased. One written report dated 31/5/2001 addressed to Station House Officer, Itarsi was filed by father of the deceased Narbada Prasad. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter Crime No.365/01 (Ex.P/13) for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, was registered at Police Station, Itarsi and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against, as many as, seven accused persons. Out of them, except appellants others were acquitted of the charges.
3. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. According to him, appellant no.3 Vijaya alias Vijaylata, sister-in-law of the deceased, is married and has been staying separately since long and there is no incriminating evidence against her and, therefore, she is entitled to be acquitted. Alternatively, he argued that, at the most, appellant no.2 Shanti Bai, mother-in-law of the deceased, can only be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and appellant no.1 Manoj has already suffered the impugned custodial sentence, while Shantbai has suffered imprisonment for 4 years.
4. In response, learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the Objector, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the impugned judgment was well merited. Cr.A. No.2605/05 3 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.
6. Santosh (PW1), brother of the deceased, deposed in para 2 of his evidence that Reeta had never told him in regard to maltreatment at the hands of her in-laws and she used to tell her mother only. Pinki alias Sunita (PW3), friend of the deceased, deposed in para 1 that Reeta had told her that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass and beat her on trifle matters. In para 3 she deposed that appellant no.3 used to instigate appellant no.2, but she did not depose the manner in which and when appellant no.3 instigated them. Hariram (PW5) has not deposed anything against appellant no.3. Ranu (PW8), sister of the deceased, also has not leveled any specific allegation against appellant no.3. Rakesh Sahu (PW9) deposed in para 1 that on 29.5.01 when he met the deceased, she had started weeping and upon asking had informed her that appellant no.3 and her husband Ramesh had threatened to bring Rs.50,000/-, Fridge and VCR else they would harass her. Krishnabai (PW19) deposed in para 3 of her evidence that deceased was beaten by appellant nos. 1 and 2 and has not said anything against appellant no.3. Therefore, there is no direct allegation of cruelty against appellant no.3. Though some omnibus allegations were leveled against appellant no.3 in the evidence of some witnesses, yet, on that basis alone, her conviction cannot be sustained as on the same set of evidence, some other accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court and against them no appeal has been filed by the State. It is an admitted fact and also brother of the deceased Santosh (PW1) admitted in para 12 of his evidence that appellant no.3 Vijaya resided at Hoshangabad along with her husband Ramesh.
7. From the evidence of all the witnesses, it is crystal clear that appellant nos. 1 and 2 used to subject Reeta to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and her death was caused within seven years of the marriage. The fact that Cr.A. No.2605/05 4 deceased was subjected to physical cruelty soon before her death, is also established from the evidence of the witnesses, as well as, from medical evidence. Therefore, in view of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, it was rightly presumed by the trial Court that appellant nos. 1 and 2 had caused the dowry death of Reeta.
8. In the aforesaid premises, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant no.3 Vijiya alias Vijaylata is acquitted of the offences. Her bail bonds stand discharged. However, the appeal, so far as it relates to appellants nos. 1 and 2, the same stand dismissed. Their convictions and sentences are affirmed. As per record, appellant no.1 Manoj was in jail. His supersession warrant be sent to jail authorities. Appellant no.2 Shantibai is on bail. She is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 25/11/13 for being committed to custody for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure her arrest.
9. Copy of this judgment along with record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. (B.D.Rathi) Judge 8/10/13 (and)