Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 868 (MP)

Arnol Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-07-21

S.S.JHA

body2003
JUDGMENT Appellants have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 13/94 by the Court of Shri Shivmangalsingh, First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, District Guna for the offence under section 304-B IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 498A IPC they are sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the ingredients of section 304B and 498A IPC have not been proved by the prosecution, in the absence of proof of ingredients of sections 304B and 498A IPC conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the appellants submitted that for the offence under section 304B IPC it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that: (i) the death of the woman must have been caused by bum or bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death must have been occurred within seven years of the marriage; (iii) soon before the death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment must have been for or in connection with demand of dowry. Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the absence of any evidence about cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry and in the absence of the evidence that soon before the death of the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the appellants has taken this Court through the evidence of PW 1 Binnibai, who is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that the incident took place on 3.3.1990 wherein it was reported that Krishnabai burnt herself and committed suicide. FIR is Ex. P-8 wherein it is mentioned that the complaint was lodged by Malua Sio Amolsingh that when he has gone to the house of Ganesh Ram for manual labour, he was informed that his house is burning and the door of the house was closed from inside. He climbed the wall, entered the house and saw that his wife Krishnabai is lying on the ground. He tried to extinguish the fire and found that his wife was dead. PW 1 has deposed that the deceased died two years after her marriage. He climbed the wall, entered the house and saw that his wife Krishnabai is lying on the ground. He tried to extinguish the fire and found that his wife was dead. PW 1 has deposed that the deceased died two years after her marriage. She has deposed that the deceased used to state that her husband and mother-in-law are beating her and were demanding a bicycle in dowry. The girl was taken from her house a day earlier and the girl died immediately after she reached her husband's home. In the cross-examination, she admitted that her entire family earns livelihood by daily wage earning as labour. She admitted that at the time of marriage, no dowry was settled and there was no demand of dowry during marriage. Three ornaments were given to the deceased in the marriage and she admitted that the jewellery of the deceased had been mortgaged by her which continues to be mortgaged. PW 2 Harnamsingh, father of the girl has admitted in para 3 of his deposition that he and the accused are poor labourers there were no talks about the dowry. During marriage or after marriage, no dowry was demanded. He has deposed that the demand of dowry was made from his daughter. He admitted that in the marriage, he had given only silver 'Bichhua' (an ornament for the fingers of toes) valued at Rs. 50-60 and rest of the jewellery were given by her in-laws. He admitted that the jewellery of his daughter was mortgaged by him. Counsel for the appellants submitted that from this evidence, it is clear that both the parties are poor. There was no question of demand of dowry as the parents of the deceased were not in a position to pay the dowry. There is no evidence that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to torture for demand of dowry. On the 'contrary, it has come in the evidence that younger brother of the husband of the deceased and father of her husband had stated that they would treat their daughter-in-law as their own daughter. There is no evidence on record that at the time of the incident, appellants were in the house. It is admitted by the witnesses that the appellants are labourers and they were away from their house when the incident took place. There is no evidence on record that at the time of the incident, appellants were in the house. It is admitted by the witnesses that the appellants are labourers and they were away from their house when the incident took place. At the time of the incident in the year 1990 there was no suspicion regarding commission of the offence and the FIR was lodged in the year 1992, i.e. two years after the incident. Even otherwise, in the case of Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P. [2001(2) Supreme Today (Criminal) 467], it is held that in the absence of evidence regarding the cruelty soon before the death by the husband and relatives of the husband for demand of dowry, conviction under section 304B IPC could not be maintained. In the result, conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 304B and 498A IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. Amount of fine deposited by the appellants be refunded to them. Appeal succeeds and is allowed.