Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 383 (MP)

Amrendra Singh And Ors. v. State Of M. P.

2000-04-08

S.P.KHARE

body2000
JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellants Amrendra Singh, his father Rajendra Singh and his mother Kaushalya Devi have been convicted under Section 498A, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. They have been acquitted of the charge under Section 306, IPC. 2. Deceased Kusum obtained the degree of Bachelor of Engineering and was married to accused Amrendra Singh on 16.6.1985 who is also an Engineer. She sustained severe burn injuries in early morning of 12.1.1986 in her matrimonial home and breathed her last in the hospital on 21.1.1986. Thus she died within eight months of her marriage. R.B. Singh (PW 1) is the father and Rajeshwari (PW 4) is mother of the deceased. Sushil Kumar (PW 7) is her brother. The father of the deceased and the father of her husband are employed in Bharat Heavy Electricals, Bhopal and are living in the houses in the close vicinity of this factory. The house of the parents of the deceased is about two kilometres from the house where she lived with her husband and his parents during the period of her married life. 3. The prosecution case is that Kusum committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. She sustained 65% burn injuries and was taken to Kasturba Hospital. She took this step as she was being treated with cruelty by the accused persons. They were demanding a scooter and a colour T.V. from her parents. After the incident of fire the accused persons told Kusum that in case she gives the statement that she has committed suicide they are likely to be sentenced for seven years and they further threatened to cause the death of her parents and her brothers if she makes such statement. On account of this threat and in order to save the accused from punishment the deceased made a statement Ex. P-29 on 12.1.1986 before the Head Constable and Ex. P.28 on 13.1.1986 before the Naib Tehsildar and the Executive Magistrate that she sustained burn injuries from the flame of the stove when she was preparing tea in the morning. But she told her mother Rajeshwari a day before her death that those statements are not true and she had set herself ablaze. The police had initially closed the chapter. P.28 on 13.1.1986 before the Naib Tehsildar and the Executive Magistrate that she sustained burn injuries from the flame of the stove when she was preparing tea in the morning. But she told her mother Rajeshwari a day before her death that those statements are not true and she had set herself ablaze. The police had initially closed the chapter. It is only when Sushil Kumar, brother of the deceased who is employed at Bombay came to Bhopal and met the senior officers of the police, the investigation was started and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. The opinion of Dr. D.K. Satpathy (PW 14) who was Senior Forensic Expert was obtained. In his opinion it was not a case of accidental fire. After investigation the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC against the accused persons. The Trial Court framed charges under these sections and tried the case. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that the death of Kusum was accidental and they never treated her with cruelty. 5. The Trial Court after a very exhaustive survey of the documentary and oral evidence held that Kusum has committed suicide by burning herself and it was not a case of accidental fire. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that the death of Kusum was accidental and they never treated her with cruelty. 5. The Trial Court after a very exhaustive survey of the documentary and oral evidence held that Kusum has committed suicide by burning herself and it was not a case of accidental fire. The accused persons have been convicted for the offence under Section 498A, IPC but they have been acquitted of the charge under Section 306, IPC The findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court to reach the conclusion that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty are that, (a) the mother-in-law of Kusum, Kaushalya Devi had taken a promise from her father at the time of the marriage that he would not call her to his house before Holi i.e. for 8-9 months, and the accused persons did not allow Kusum to go to the house of her parents; (b) they did not like her brothers to come to their house and meet her; (c) the demand of T.V. and scooter from the parents of Kusum; (d) harassing Kusum for her failure to bring these items; (e) not providing proper environment to Kusum to study in order to appear in the competitive examination; (f) ridiculing and harassing her parents in her presence knowing that she is a well educated girl and all this would be intolerable for her; and (g) taunting remarks by the accused persons that they could get 1.5 lacs of rupees if the marriage had taken place elsewhere but they preferred to marry Kusum because of her beauty and academic attainments. All this, according to the Trial Court, amounted to mental cruelty which drove Kusum to bring an end to her life and she was harassed with a view to coercing her to meet the dowry demand. 6. In this appeal the findings of the Trial Court have been assailed and emphasis has been laid on the two dying declarations of the deceased which exonerate the accused persons completely. The father of the deceased has challenged the acquittal of the accused persons by filing a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. This revision was admitted by this Court and notices were issued to the accused persons. They have appeared in this revision through their Counsel. Arguments on this revision have been heard with the appeal. The father of the deceased has challenged the acquittal of the accused persons by filing a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. This revision was admitted by this Court and notices were issued to the accused persons. They have appeared in this revision through their Counsel. Arguments on this revision have been heard with the appeal. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons of the charge under Section 306, IPC. It is not known whether the matter was examined by the Public Prosecutor who conducted the case before the Additional Sessions Judge that the case is fit or not for filing the appeal against acquittal under Section 306, IPC. 7. The Trial Court has recorded a clear finding that Kusum committed suicide and it was not a case in which she sustained burn injuries by accident. It has also recorded a finding that she was treated with cruelty by the accused persons and that was covered by the definition of cruelty given in the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC. The obvious and glaring error which the Trial Court committed Was that it did not refer to Section 113A of the Evidence Act which was very relevant and material in this context. The Trial Court in para 81 of the judgment abruptly recorded the finding of acquittal of the accused persons under Section 306, IPC. That has resulted into grave and flagrant miscarriage of justice. It was necessary for the Trial Court to examine the findings in light of Section 113A of the Evidence Act which had been introduced in the Act on 26.12.1983. The death of Kusum was admittedly within seven years of marriage (within eight months) and the finding was that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons within this period. In a revision at the instance of a private person under Section 401, Cr.P.C. this Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, in view of the ban imposed by Sub-section (3) of Section 401, Cr.P.C. The proper course would be to set aside the acquittal under Section 306, IPC and send the case back to the Trial Court to examine whether the charge under Section 306, IPC is proved or not. There has been a manifest error on the part of the Trial Court resulting in miscarriage of justice. There has been a manifest error on the part of the Trial Court resulting in miscarriage of justice. There exist an exceptional circumstance to interfere with the order of acquittal and that is permissible under Section 401, Cr.P.C. Satendra Nath v. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580 ; Kamtan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 2485 =11 (1997) CCR'lO9 (SC) and Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh, (1998) 7 SCC 223 =VII (1998) SLT 182=IV (1998) CCR 19 (SC). The facts are so intertwined and the evidence is so inextricably mixed up that conviction and sentence of the accused persons under Section 498A, IPC will also have to be set aside. The 'cruelty' is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 306, IPC in view of Section 113A, Evidence Act. There has to be fresh appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court even for arriving at the finding whether the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty. 8. The revision is allowed. The acquittal of the respondents in revision (the three accused persons) of the charge under Section 306, IPC is set aside and the case is sent back to the Trial Court to decide whether the charges under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC are proved or not keeping into consideration the provision in Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court will give an opportunity of hearing to both sides including the right to lead any additional evidence and after hearing the arguments will proceed to deliver a fresh judgment. It is made clear that the Trial Court will appreciate evidence afresh in respect of the charges under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC uninfluenced by the finding of the Trial Court under these sections or anything said in the present order of this Court. The Registry will send the record immediately to the Sessions Judge, Bhopal with a copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before that Court on 1.5.2000. The case is being sent to Sessions Judge as the Judge who decided it earlier has retired long back. The Sessions Judge will now deal with this case himself and it will not be transferred to any Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal filed by the accused persons against their conviction for the minor offence under Section 498A, IPC also stands disposed of accordingly. Their conviction and sentence under that section are set aside.