Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 10 (CHH)

NARAYAN VISHWAS v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-01-29

L.C.BHADOO

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th November, 1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 78/89, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted Narayan Vishwas, Sarveshwar Vishwas and Smt. Ramola Vishwas under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 of IPC and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 24th March, 1989, at about 7 p.m., Dr. D.R. Patel, Primary Health Center, Dharamjaigarh, informed the Police Station: Dharamjaigarh and presented a written communication signed by Dr. R.K. Tripathi, Primary Health Centre, Dharamjaigarh, in which the doctor written that Pratima, W/o Narayan Vishwas aged about 18 years has died due to consumption of poison. On the basis of this report, the report was entered in the Rojnamcha. A Panchanama was prepared and the information was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, investigation was started and the case was registered under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC. A sample of vomiting was put into a tin and sealed. Viscera was also taken. The samples were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar (M.P.), from where the report was received that the deceased took Andosulfone (Thyodone) "Organochloro Pesticide". After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed with the allegations that the deceased - Pratima alias Kutti committed suicide by consuming poison due to the harassment meted out to her and she was abated to commit suicide and treated with cruelty by the husband and other accused persons. They use to torture her for not doing the work at the residence and for that reason the deceased - Pratima alias Kutti many times went to her father's house and complained about this fact to her father and mother. Deceased Pratima alias Kutti went to her parent's house last time one month before the death. She was not prepared to come back to her in-laws house, but fifteen days before the date of occurrence she came back to her in-laws house after her parents persuaded her to go to in-laws house. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on the charge, framed the charge under Section 306 & 498-A of IPC against Narayan Vishwas, Sarveshwar Vishwas and Smt. Ramola Vishwas. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on the charge, framed the charge under Section 306 & 498-A of IPC against Narayan Vishwas, Sarveshwar Vishwas and Smt. Ramola Vishwas. All the three accused persons denied the charge and wanted the trial. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused persons/appellants examined PW-1 - Krishano Kant, the father of the deceased; PW- 2 - Atul Chand Madhu, the uncle of the deceased; PW -3 - Dr. R.K. Tripathi, PW -4 - Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma; PW-5 - Manmat Sutar; PW-6 - Niranjan Mandal; PW-7 - Cherkar Ram, Patwari; PW-8 - Jagdev Singh, Constable, P.S. Dharamjaigarh; PW-9 - Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Assistant Sub Inspector; PW-10 - Aashulata, the mother of the deceased; PW -11 - Gurupad; PW -12 - Anil Kumar Madhu; PW -13 - Kalidasi; PW -14 - Virendra Sharma, Sub Inspector. The statements of all the accused person under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Sessions Judge. All the three accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and said that they never harassed the deceased - Pratima alias Kutti, nor they quarreled with the deceased. 4. I have heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel on behalf of the accused/appellants and Miss Sharmila Singhai, Deputy Govt: Advocate on behalf of the State/respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is no evidence on the record which goes to prove that the accused persons abetted deceased - Pratima alias Kutti to commit suicide and there is no evidence available on the record which proves that the accused persons used to treat the deceased with cruelty. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate supported the judgment of the trial Court. I have perused the evidence and the record available as far as the question of committing suicide within the two years of the marriage at the in-law's agricultural filed is not disputed. The only question remains to be decided is that whether by their behaviour of cruelty the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In this case, there is no element of demand of dowry by the accused persons. The only question remains to be decided is that whether by their behaviour of cruelty the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In this case, there is no element of demand of dowry by the accused persons. The only allegation is that accused persons used to harass and maltreat the deceased and she was not allowed to take food and she was provided with old and tom clothes and the accused persons used to quarrel with the deceased which forced deceased - Pratima alias Kutti to commit suicide. 5. If we look at the evidence of PW -1 - Krishano Kant, the father of deceased, who has stated that his daughter - Pratima alias Kutti was married to accused - Narayan Vishwas two years before his statement and after 4-6 months of the marriage of the deceased when she came to his house, then, she informed that her mother-in-law and husband do not give her food and all of them says that she does not do the work. Thereafter, when his son-in-law came to his house, he sent the deceased along with him. His daughter again came to his house one month before the death. His daughter was not prepared to go to her in-law's house and when he inquired from her then she said that her in-laws are maltreating her and said that his mother-in-law and husband are maltreating her. On this he made her understand and persuaded her to go to her in-law's house, then on his persuasion she went her in-law's house fifteen days prior to the death. After fifteen days, his son-in-law came to his house and asked him to give Rs.400/- and said that he will take his wife somewhere else to earn the livelihood. Then, he said to his son-in-law that you are the only son of your parents, therefore, you should not go anywhere else leaving your parents behind. After hearing this, his son-in-law went back to his village. Thereafter, on the same days one boy namely Subal came from Sagarpur and informed that Pratima alias Kutti has died due to consuming of poison. When he was going to Sagarpur, that boy met him in the way and his son-in-law also met him there. Thereafter, he and his son-in-law went to Sagarpur, but the fact of demand of Rs. 400/- by his son-in-law is not in the Police statement. 6. When he was going to Sagarpur, that boy met him in the way and his son-in-law also met him there. Thereafter, he and his son-in-law went to Sagarpur, but the fact of demand of Rs. 400/- by his son-in-law is not in the Police statement. 6. Similarly, PW -2 - Atul Chand Madhu, who IS the uncle of the deceased stated in his statement that Narayan Vishwas came fifteen days before the death of Pratima. He came to his house while going back to his village and said that Pratima is not ready to go with him, then he said there must be some reason, otherwise why she is not going to your place, then Narayan informed him that she quarrels with his parents and they are not in good terms with each other. Then he said that it is not necessary that the daughter-in-law remains always in good terms with parents-in-law, but the husband and wife should live their life with mutual understanding, then he informed him that even if the parents are angry you cannot take any action against them. He did not talk to Pratima alias Kutti and she did not said anything to him. Then he persuaded his brother to send Pratima with Narayan. Thereafter, his brother said to Pratima and Narayan that first take your meal and thereafter go and after taking their meals Pratima and Narayan went to their house. It is correct to say that after fifteen day Narayan himself came in the evening at about 4.30 and he informed that Pratima has consumed poison. 7. Similarly, PW -10 - Aashulata, the mother of the deceased has said that whenever her daughter came to her house, she used to inform that her in-laws are not giving food to her to eat and they are providing her only old and torn clothes and she informed that accused - Narayan beat her and mother-in-law & father-in-law abuse her. But this fact has not been proved by PW-1, the father of deceased. 8. PW -12 - Anil Kumar Madhu has stated that he knows Krishano Kant. He stated that he went to the in-law's house of Pratima to bring her to her parent's house. He stayed for one night in Sagarpur in the in-law's house of Pratima and then the mother-in-law of Pratima informed him that Pratima quarrels with them. 8. PW -12 - Anil Kumar Madhu has stated that he knows Krishano Kant. He stated that he went to the in-law's house of Pratima to bring her to her parent's house. He stayed for one night in Sagarpur in the in-law's house of Pratima and then the mother-in-law of Pratima informed him that Pratima quarrels with them. When he inquired from Pratima why she quarrels with her in-laws, then she said she never quarrels Mother-in-laws and Pratima alias Kutti informed him that her mother-in-law does not like his work. So, all the witnesses have not supported the statements of each other in material particulars. Even before this incident, the parents of deceased - Pratima never met the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased to complain them about their behaviour. On the contrary, this statement goes to show that whatever complaint made by Pratima to her parents, when they asked Narayan, the husband of the deceased, he was always ready and willing to accept whatever the parents of deceased - Pratima asked him. 9. If we believe the above statements on their face value, even then the act of the accused persons does not come under the mischief of abetment or cruelty. The accused persons and deceased comes from a very poor family background and the statements which the prosecution witnesses has given to the extent that there were some quarrels between the in-laws and the deceased to the extent that they were not able to maintain the harmonious relations. The mother-in-law of the deceased never liked her work. Such things are common in the joint family. From the conduct of the deceased, it appears that being a young girl she could not adjust herself in the environment of the in-law's family. It seems that she was emotional girl and unfortunately she was not able to adjust herself in the in-laws family, The picture which emerges after going through the whole evidence and from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available on the record shows that the deceased was not able to adjust herself in the environment of the in-law's family. Perhaps, she was interested in living separately from her in-laws, but being the only son of their parents, accused - Narayan could not accede to the request of his wife and that the young poor lady was not able to adjust herself with the mother-in-law and father-in-law. Perhaps, she was interested in living separately from her in-laws, but being the only son of their parents, accused - Narayan could not accede to the request of his wife and that the young poor lady was not able to adjust herself with the mother-in-law and father-in-law. Ultimately, out of emotions she finished her life. 10. There is evidence on record that deceased - Pratima alias Kutti was the whole and sole in charge of the house being a wife of the only son. At one place, the father of the deceased - Krishano Kant has said that before the death of Pratima alias Kutti his son-in-law - Narayan came to his place and asked for Rs. 400/-, so that he can take his wife to some other place and earn their livelihood. But on his persuasion, he agreed to remain with his parents. This fact itself shows that accused - Narayan a simple habit person and quite adjustive and agreeable to whatever was said to him. Even the prosecution has not given any specific instances of the cruel behaviour or maltreatment or harassment of the accused persons to the deceased. Even during the investigation, the Police statements of the witnesses were recorded after seven days of the incident. 11. In this case, if we look at the evidence, which has been reproduced above shows that there is vague evidence and vague allegations about the cruelty and harassment. There is no convincing evidence to support these statements in order to prove the offence under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC. There is no evidence that on account of their harassment and maltreatment, accused - Narayan or his parents had ever beaten the deceased. Simply exchanging hot words and saying something to the daughter-in-law by the in-laws does not come under the mischief of abetment. Such incident often takes place in a joint family particularly in the family background of the Indian families. More particularly, the accused persons in their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have denied the allegation of harassment to the deceased. Even the conduct of accused, - Narayan to inform PW -2 Atul Chand Madhu, the uncle of the deceased about the consuming of poison by the deceased goes to show that he was not even aware about the mental condition of the deceased and he was so simple that he immediately informed the in-laws. Even the conduct of accused, - Narayan to inform PW -2 Atul Chand Madhu, the uncle of the deceased about the consuming of poison by the deceased goes to show that he was not even aware about the mental condition of the deceased and he was so simple that he immediately informed the in-laws. In order to prove the abetment so as to force any person to commit suicide there must be an element in evidence that by the act or conduct, behaviour the accused persons provoke, incite or encourage the deceased or to force her to commit the suicide. All these elements are missing in the evidence of the present case. There must be some reasonable certainty to incite. The consequences must be capable of being spelt out. If we look at the evidence available on the record in the present case, we find that the accused persons had not by their acts or omissioned or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased Pratima alias Kutti was not left out with any other option except to commit suicide. The words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be the instigation. 12. Therefore, in view of the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has failed to bring home the ingredients of the offence of abetment under Section 306 of IPC for cruelty an under Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court is based on no evidence and the same cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and acquit the accused/appellants Narayan Vishwas and Smt. Ramola Vishwas of the charges levelled against them for the commission of the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Their bail bonds are discharged. 13. However, during the course of argument it was brought to the notice of this Court that accused/appellant No.2 - Sarveshwar Vishwas has expired during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the case against him stands abated. Appeal Allowed.