Rajkumar Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh nagar tatha gram nivesh adhiniyam (23 of 1973)section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishna kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme proviso prescribing time limit held, object of amendment is to remove hardship caused to citizens and to provide time limit to consider objections and suggestion and to provide a deeming clause so that the authority would act in quite promptitude. proviso unequivocal, categorical and unambiguous and does not permit any other kind of construction but a singular one. section 50 (4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso is not retrospective. scheme already finalised will not lapse and has to be completed within the time span provided under proviso. no vested right accrues in favour of authority on commencement of process of preparation of scheme, which cannot be impaired by introducing proviso. section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso uses the term shall be deemed to have lapsed. it does not convey that scheme gets automatically lapsed. - 9. however, offence under section 498a of the indian penal code is clearly made out on the basis of the evidence of pw-8 ramdayal, pw-2 shantibai, pw-3 ashok and pw-14 beniprasad that the deceased was deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant.n.p. singh, j.1. the appellant alongwith three others were prosecuted for the offences under sections 306 and 498a of the indian penal code before the sessions judge, sehore in sessions trial no. 44 of 1990 of the allegation that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling of the house on 6.9.1989 at the house of the appellant/husband on account of cruelty and harassment subjected to her for not bringing desired demand of dowry.2. the appellant was convicted under sections 306 and 498a of the indian penal code and was sentenced to undergo r.i. for seven years under section 306 and three years under section 498 of the indian penal code while other co-accused were acquitted.3. on a written report (ex. p-1) submitted by ramdayal (pw-1) father of the deceased f.i. r. (ex. p-14) was recorded by a.s.i. shri r.s. chaudawat (pw-17) and a case was registered and the investigation proceeded.4. after the charge-sheet, cognizance and the commitment the case came up for disposal before the sessions judge, sehore.5. the defence was innocence and false implication.6. the prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses at the trial, out of whom pw-1 ramdayal is the father of the deceased, p-w2 shantibai is the mother and p-w3 ashok is the brother of the deceased, pw-4 manohar, pw-6 chandumiya, pw-7 munnemiya, pw-8 constable devilai, pw-9 constable rambharose pw-10 constable asharam,pw-11 chamanlal, pw-12 leeladhar, pw-13 asi abdul mazid khan, and pw-16 rakesh kumar are all formal witnesses pw-5 dr. a.b. niyazi had held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has proved post mortem report (ex. p-5). pw-14 beniprasad is the neighbour of the appellant, who has deposed that there was always quarrel in the house of the appellant with the deceased. pw-15 suil kumar gupta has proved the report (ex. p-12) of the f.s.l. and pw-17 r.s. chudawat is the i.o. of this case.7. the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at the house of the appellant is not disputed and denied by the defence. pw-1 ramdayal, pw-2 shantibai; pw-3 ashok who are parents and brother of the deceased and pw-14 beniprasad, neighbour of the appellant are the only material witnesses in this case.8. on perusal of the evidence of pw-1, 2 and 3 there is nothing that there was any demand of dowry by the appellant or his parents. the prosecution has also not led any evidence that the appellant had abetted, aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredient of the offence under section 306 of the indian penal code is not established. the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 306 of the indian penal code cannot be sustained. accordingly they are set aside.9. however, offence under section 498a of the indian penal code is clearly made out on the basis of the evidence of pw-8 ramdayal, pw-2 shantibai, pw-3 ashok and pw-14 beniprasad that the deceased was deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant. the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 498a of the indian penal code does not suffer from any legal infirmity. accordingly they are upheld.10. for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part.appeal partly allowed.