Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 11 (CHH)

MOTILAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-01-30

L.C.BHADOO

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, dated 4th October, 1989, passed in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 1985 by which the accused/appellant has been convicted for the commission of the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, other accused - Surjabai was acquitted of the charge framed against her for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this criminal appeal are that Shakuntala Bai alias Amri Bai (since deceased) was married to accused Motilal in the year 1976-77 and thereafter, Shakuntala Bai continued to live in her matrimonial house. Other accused - Surjabai is the wife of Rajaram, the elder brother of accused - Motilai. Accused - Motilal and his brothers consist a joint family. On 18th June, 1985, Shakuntala Bai alias Amri Bai died in Village : Deori, in her matrimonial house after consuming poison. Deceased - Shakuntala Bai's vomiting was taken into possession by the Police through Ex.P-7. These facts have been admitted by the accused persons. After the marriage, accused -Motilal used to ill treat Shakuntala Bai and used to tell her that she has not brought sufficient dowry and to bring more gold and money from your father. In return, when Shakuntala Bai used to tell her husband that his father is not in a position to give more money on this accused - Motilal used to beat the deceased after getting angry and he used to tell her to get out from his house and he used to threat that he will kill her. In the month of December, 1984, accused - Motilal called Suryamani, the elder brother of deceased - Shakuntala Bai and asked him if you want welfare of your sister then send Rs.3,000/- and out of that threat Suryamani paid Rs.3,000/- after arranging the same. In the month of December, 1984, accused - Motilal called Suryamani, the elder brother of deceased - Shakuntala Bai and asked him if you want welfare of your sister then send Rs.3,000/- and out of that threat Suryamani paid Rs.3,000/- after arranging the same. In June, 1985, before 3..:4 months of the death of Shakuntala Bai the servant of accused - Motilal came to the father of deceased - Shakuntala Bai namely, Bhuvan Lal and informed him that your doughter has called you and accused - Motilal has said that you can take your daughter to your place because he do not want to keep her in his house. Bhuvan Lal requested accused - Motilal to keep Shakuntala Bai with him and he returned to his house. When after two days, Bhuvan Lal went to Mahasamund to the house of his brother-in-law Bishatram, deceased Shakuntala Bai came from her matrimonial house with servant along with broken utensils in a bag. She told her father in the house of her maternal uncle that accused - Motilal has damaged and broken these utensils and in abusing language said that why these brass utensils were given to him at the time of marriage and they became old and why the stainless steel utensils have not been given to him. If you want your welfare then bring new stainless steel utensils from your father. Bhuvan Lal, looking to the precarious condition of his daughter Shakuntala Bai purchased new utensils from a shop in Mahasamund and gave it to his daughter Shakuntala Bai. Shakuntala Bai took those utensils to her matrimonial house. The husband of Surjabai used to reside at some other place being a public servant and Surjabai used to reside in Village : Deori with accused - Motilal in his house. Accused - Motilal and Surjabai had illicit relations and deceased - Shakuntala Bai had an occasion to see, therefore, accused - Motilal used to beat Shakuntala Bai and used to tell her that she should not disclose this thing to anyone else otherwise he will kill her. Bhuwan Lal" - father of Shakuntala Bai received the news at 10.00 p.m. in the night on 18th June 1985 that his daughter Shakuntala Bai has died in the house of her husband and on the next day i.e. 19th June 1985 Bhuwan Lal submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) to the Police Station. Bhuwan Lal" - father of Shakuntala Bai received the news at 10.00 p.m. in the night on 18th June 1985 that his daughter Shakuntala Bai has died in the house of her husband and on the next day i.e. 19th June 1985 Bhuwan Lal submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) to the Police Station. A case was registered by the Police and during the investigation the vomiting of deceased Shakuntala Bai was taken into possession through Ex. P/7. The Panchanama (Ex. P/6) regarding the dead body of Shakuntala Bai was prepared. Dr. S. Sanyal after conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased prepared a report (Ex. P/2) stating that Shakuntala Bai has died on account of consuming of the poison. Suspected viscera of Shakuntala Bai were sealed and sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex. P/8. According to the report the viscera and vomited material contained organophosphorous pesticide. 3. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against both the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the material framed the charges against the accused persons. Accused Motilal was charged with Section306 read with Section 34 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Surja Bai was charged with the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They denied the charges levelled against them. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the offences levelled against the accused persons examined Bhuwanlal (PW-l), Dr. Narsingh Prasad Sahu (PW-2), Nemichand (PW-3), Laxmi Bai (PW-4), Dulari Bai (PW-5), Dr. S. Sanyal (PW -6), Gendlal Verma (PW - 7), Chetram (PW -8) and Suryamani (PW-9). The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the charges levelled against them. They produced Rajkumar Chandrakar (DW -1) and R.K. Choubey (DW-2) in their defence. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties delivered the judgment and convicted appellant-Motilal for the commission of the aforesaid offences and acquitted Surjabai. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Vishnu Koshta and Miss Sharmila Singhai learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ Respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that regarding the demand of dowry of Rs. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Vishnu Koshta and Miss Sharmila Singhai learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ Respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that regarding the demand of dowry of Rs. 3,000/- in the year 1985, there are controdictions in the statements of Bhuwanlal (P.W.I) father of the deceased Laxmibai (P.W.4) mother of the deceased and Suryamani (P.W.9) brother of the deceased. He further argued that there are certain improvements in the statements before the Court and the Prosecution has failed in proving that the accused have ever demanded money or anything else as a dowry. Since the brother of appellant - Motilal namely Rajaram was in service, therefore, he used to reside at other place and as there was a joint family of all the brothers, they were residing together and a false allegations have been levelled against appellant- Motilal for having illicit relations and torturing and treating the deceased cruelly and thereby abetting Shakuntala Bai for committing suicide. 8. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate while supporting the judgment of the trial Court argued that from the evidence on record offence against the accused stands proved and the judgment of the trial Court is correct in all respects which does not require any interference by this Court. 9. I have gone through the judgment rendered by the trial Court. As far as question of contradictions with regard to the demand of Rs.3,000/- is concerned, Bhuwanlal (P.W.1) has stated that three years before the day of his statement accused has sent his servant to his son S1.iryamani who was studying in the college at that time and asked for Rs. 5,000/- through his servant. His son Suryamani paid Rs. 3,000/- to the accused. After one year the accused again sent his servant to him and that servant informed that the accused has called him because there is always quarrel between accused Motilal and his daughter Shakuntalabai, but he could not go to his son-in-law's place. After eight days again the servant of the accused came and said that your daughter and son-in-law both have called you and accused - Motilal has broken all the brass utensils numbering 20. In the cross-examination Bhuwanlal (P.W.l) has stated that he took Rs.3,000/- from his brother-in-law Yugal and sent that money to the accused. After eight days again the servant of the accused came and said that your daughter and son-in-law both have called you and accused - Motilal has broken all the brass utensils numbering 20. In the cross-examination Bhuwanlal (P.W.l) has stated that he took Rs.3,000/- from his brother-in-law Yugal and sent that money to the accused. Suryamani (P.W.9) in his evidence has also stated that in the year 1984 the servant of accused - Motilal came to him and said that your sister is calling you. When he reached to the accused in village Deori, the accused said that if you want welfare of your sister give him Rs.3,000/-. He could not talk to his sister. Thereafter, he went to his maternal uncle and took Rs.3,000/- from him and he paid the same to the accused in village Deori. Laxmibai (P.W.4) has also stated that as and when deceased - Shakuntalabai used to came to their house she always said that accused - Motilal always demanded the money. In the examination-in-chief she has stated that the year in which Shakuntalabai died they paid Rs. 3,000/- to the accused because appellant - Motilal always used to torture Shakuntalabai for bringing money and utensils. Appellant - Motilal broken all the utensils in the month of April At that time she was ill and was witt, his brother in Mahasamund and accused Motilal sent her daughter along with the servant for bringing utensils and they purchased new utensils from the shop of Nemichand and gave the same to Shakuntalabai. As and when his son Suryamani visited Motilal's village he was never allowed to talk to Shakuntalabai. Therefore, if we look at the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses, there is no material contradiction in the statements, which makes the statements unbelievable. It is true that at one stage Bhuwanlal (P.W.I) in paragraph 2 of his evidence has stated that accused demanded Rs. 5,000/-, but in the same paragraph he has stated that they paid Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, the fact of payment of Rs. 3,000/- to accused - Motilal stands proved. Similarly, by the statements of these witnesses, it is also proved that accused - Motilal had broken all the brass utensils and sent those utensils with deceased Shakuntalabai with his servant to Mahasamund when father of Shakuntalabai was at Mahasamund. 3,000/-. Therefore, the fact of payment of Rs. 3,000/- to accused - Motilal stands proved. Similarly, by the statements of these witnesses, it is also proved that accused - Motilal had broken all the brass utensils and sent those utensils with deceased Shakuntalabai with his servant to Mahasamund when father of Shakuntalabai was at Mahasamund. It is also proved that other of Shakuntalabai purchased stainless steel utensils from the shop of Nemichand (P.W.3) and gave the same to Shakuntalabai, thereafter she brought those utensils to her matrimonial house. The fact of these things stands proved. 10. As far as question of illicit relations of appellant Motilal with acquitted accused Surja Bai is concerned, Dularibai (P.W.5) has stated in her evidence that deceased Shakuntalabai was the daughter of her mother-in-law and sister of her husband and Shakuntalabai disclosed to her that after one year of their marriage she saw that accused Motilal and Surjabai are in illicit relations; from that date Motilal started beating her. Accused - Motilal during first 2-3 years did not send Shakuntalabai to her parent's house. She has also proved the fact of broken brass utensils. She has also stated that once one and a half years before the death of Shakuntalabai when she came to her parent's house she saw some injury marks on her body. On enquiry Shakuntalabai disclosed her that she had an occasion to see illicit relations between accused - Motital and Surjabai and from that day accused - Motilal started beating her and said she should not disclose this fact to anyone. If you will disclose, I will kill you. Laxmibai (P.W.4) has also stated that Shakuntalabai told her that accused - Motilal and Surjabai are in illicit relations because the husband of Surjabai stays out of the village as he is in service at some other place. Therefore, if we look at the statements of these four witnesses there is a consist statement that accused - Motilal, demanded Rs.3,000/- and that were paid by the in-laws. Thereafter, he broke the brass utensils and asked her wife to take the same to the parents and bring new stainless steel utensils in place of broken stensils. The fact of having illicit relations of accused - Motilal with Surjabai the wife of his elder brother is also proved. Thereafter, he broke the brass utensils and asked her wife to take the same to the parents and bring new stainless steel utensils in place of broken stensils. The fact of having illicit relations of accused - Motilal with Surjabai the wife of his elder brother is also proved. As deceased Shakuntalabai had an occasion to see the illicit relation of accused - Motilal, he used to beat her and out of this frustration the deceased consumed poison and she died on account of that. Therefore, the factum of treating the deceased with cruelty and torturing her for bringing money and utensils from her parents and also not to interfere and disclose about the illicit relations between accused - Motital and Surjabai, his elder brother's wife, were the factors responsible for abetment to the deceased to take her life by consuming poison. These circumstances compelled and forced her to take away her life as she could not withstand. the continuous torture• and harassment that is how she consumed the poison to get rid from that torturous life as no other option in her assessment was available to her. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court about the offences committed by the accused under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is correct. 11. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant further argued that paragraph 9 of the statement of Bhuwan Lal (PW-1) shows that the report (Ex.P/l) was prepared and got typed by an advocate, thereafter it is submitted to the police. In my opinion, if the report was got typed through an advocate on the information given by Bhuwan Lal (PW-1) does not make it suspicious and doubtful particularly, when all the facts contained in the complaint (Ex.P/1) are proved by Bhuwan Lal (PW -1), Laxmi Bai (PW -4), Dulari Bai (PW5) and Suryamani (PW -9). Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that accused Motilal is a sufficiently self dependant and rich person, therefore, there was no occasion for him to ask for the money and other items because in his own bank account there was Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- were also deposited in the account of deceased Shakuntala Bai. About this fact, as has been observed by the trial Court that the photo stat copy of the pass book shows that once the amount of Rs. 60,000/- were also deposited in the account of deceased Shakuntala Bai. About this fact, as has been observed by the trial Court that the photo stat copy of the pass book shows that once the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited in the year it 982 by cash and the same was withdrawn after few months. In the year 1983, 1984 and 1985 almost there was no money in the account of the accused. Similarly, if we look at the bank pass book (Ex.D/6) of deceased Shakuntala Bai the amount of Rs. 66,000/- was deposited in the month of February, 1983 and the same was withdrawn in the same year and thereafter till the time of the death of Shakuntala Bai the account shows almost nill amount. Therefore, the amount remaining in the account of the accused and the deceased Shakuntala provides no ground. 12. As far as statements of Raj Kumar Chandrakar (DW -1), the brother of the accused/appellant is concerned, he has simply said that we had not asked for any money as dowry. Before this incident, once the wife of Motilal namely, Shakuntala Bai consumed powder which is used to kill the rats, but she became all right on her own. This fact itself shows that deceased Shakuntala Bai was not being treated well at the in-law's house. If we look at paragraph 7 of the statement of this witness it shows (hat the amount was deposited in the account of Shakuntala Bai at the time when she consumed powder for committing suicide. Nothing else was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar1. This authority is of no help to the accused because in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that there is nothing in any of the letters written by the deceased to her brother complaining against the husband either he was making any demand at any point of time or he assaulted or treated his wife with cruelty or torture. But in the present case, as has been discussed above and discussed by the trial Court in the judgment there is ample evidence which goes to show that the accused used to demand money and other things from in-laws and the fact of having illicit relations with Surjabai by the accused also stands proved. Both these factors were sufficient to abet and instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment in the case of Khemraj H. Agrawal Vs. State of Maharashtra2 in which Bombay High Court reached to the conclusion that there is no evidence with regard t6 demand of money by the accused nor any documentary evidence with regard to till treatment of the deceased. Therefore, this authority is also of no help to the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nikku Ram3. But on facts this authority is also of no help to the accused. In the present case, the suicide took place after seven years of marriage so there is no question raising presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act arises. In State of Himachal Pradesh3 (supra), the statements were not believed because there was no reliable evidence to hold that the deceased was harassed within the meaning of Explanation (b) of Section 498-A of IPC. 14. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant also cited the judgment in the case of Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of Rajasthan4. This case is also of no help to the accused because in that case the mother and brother of the deceased refused that the deceased had any suspicion over the character of her husband and in that case the evidence of harassment proved by the prosecution was not found sufficient to punish the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Similarly, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Paparambaka Rosamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5. In that case also the Court reached to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the deceased meted out ill treatment or there was dowry demand. Similarly, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Paparambaka Rosamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5. In that case also the Court reached to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the deceased meted out ill treatment or there was dowry demand. The mere statements in dying declaration of the deceased that she wanted to live separately from her relations but her husband, accused beaten for on previous day and her grand mother disliked her were not sufficient to substantiate the prosecution case. 15. A perusal of the memo of appeal reveals that the counsel for the accused has raised one point that the accused has not been charged for the substantive offence under Section 306 of IPC whereas; charge against him was framed under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. When co-accused has been acquitted, the present appellant could not be convicted for the substantive offence. In the absence of the substantive charge a prejudice has been caused to the appellant. On this count, if we look at the charge framed by the trial Court, is like this that you before 18th June, 1985, treated your wife Shakuntala Bai alias Amribai with a cruel treatment and you created such situation in collusion with acquitted accused - Surjabai for deceased Shakuntala Bai and compelled her by creating such situation to commit suicide; thereby you abetted Shakuntala Bai for committing suicide and thereby, you have committed the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. If we look at the above language used in framing of the charge, this language is as good as the language used for the substantive offence and it is not like that by this way the right of the appellant has been prejudiced or his counsel was misled and he was not able to cross examine the witness for substantive offence or he was not able to put forward the defence for the substantive offence. Therefore, in the given circumstances merely writing that you committed the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC does not make any difference as the language of the above charge is just like used in the substantive offence and no prejudice has been caused and even during the argument learned counsel for the accused/appellant has not argued on this point and also before the trial Court he has not raised this point. Therefore, this point raised in the memo of appeal. 16. In the conclusion, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused/appellant by his behaviour, maltreatment, harassment and conduct created circumstances, by asking the deceased every time to bring money or other things from her parents; for that he used to harass her, treat with cruelty and also the accused/appellant was having illicit relations with his brother's wife which the deceased had seen herself and when the deceased saw this fact the accused used to threaten her not to disclose this fact to anyone and if she will disclose he will kill her. All these circumstances and factors provoked and abetted the deceased to commit suicide amount to an offence under Section 306 of IPC as also treating the deceased with cruelty to bring things and money from her parents, amounts to cruelty as defined in Section 498-A (b) of IPC. 17. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal. The judgment and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are correct which require no interference by this Court. As such, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and accused/appellant Motilal is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining sentence. Appeal Dismissed.