Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 404 (MP)

Pradeep v. State of M. P.

2001-05-08

C.K.PRASAD

body2001
Short Note Sole appellant, being aggrieved by his conviction for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years, passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 110/87 by judgment dated 5.9.1989, has preferred this appeal. According to the prosecution, deceased Parwati Bai was married to the appellant and they were tenant in the house of PW 4 Komal Yadav. According to the prosecution, appellant suspected that Parwati Sai had illicit relationship with PW 4 Komal Yadav, who was their landlord and the appellant used to beat and harass her for that. Prosecution story further is that in the night of 2.2.1986 he severely assaulted Parwati Bai and as such, she left the place. On 6.2.1986 her dead body was found in a well. Dead body of Parwati Bai was recovered from the well and was sent for post mortem examination. Police after usual investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and he was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial Appellant denied to have committed any offence and his plea was that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecution in support of its case, had altogether examined 9 witnesses. No defence witness has been examined. The trial Court on consideration of the material led before it held that Parwati Bai committed suicide and the appellant instigated her to commit suicide by assaulting and harassing her. I have heard Sri S.K. Tiwari for the appellant and Sri A.K. Verma. P.L. for the State. Mr. Tiwari submits that there is no evidence on record which in any way suggests that appellant suspected that Parwati Bai had illicit relationship with PW 4 Kamal Yadav. PW 1 Chidamilal, who happens to be the relation of Parwati Bai has stated in his evidence that appellant used to assault the deceased after taking alcohol. He has vaguely asserted the same but has not given the details thereof. According to the prosecution, PW 4 Komal Yadav, with whom the deceased had illicit relationship, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW 3 Sabula I has also not supported the case of the prosecution and both of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, in their cross-examination. According to the prosecution, PW 4 Komal Yadav, with whom the deceased had illicit relationship, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW 3 Sabula I has also not supported the case of the prosecution and both of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, in their cross-examination. nothing has been elicited which in any way suggests that appellant, on the fateful day, assaulted the deceased and she left the place on account thereof and committed suicide. Evidence brought on record does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant in any way abeted the offence. Hence, he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt I grant it accordingly. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant is on bail, he shall be discharged of his bail bond.