Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 972 (MP)

MANOHARLAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-08-11

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT : The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 14-11-1990 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Rahli District Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 234/86 whereby convicting him for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that : 3. Relying upon the evidence of Dashodabai (PW2) and Ramesh (PW8) and also on letters Ex.P/5, Ex.P/8-A and Ex.P/9 allegedly written by the appellant the trial Court convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. Shri S. C. Datt, Senior counsel for the appellant argued that no offence for abetment to commit suicide is made out even if the prosecution evidence is accepted as it is. Shri Ravindra Rajpoot counsel for the State on the other hand supported the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court. 5. Dashodabai (PW2) in her evidence has not alleged that the appellant had ill-treated his deceased wife. She has deposed essentially against Makundilal who has been acquitted by the trial Court. Likewise even Hukumchand (PW7) has not deposed anything against the appellant and has made allegation only against Makundilal. Even Ramesh (PW8) brother of deceased Saroj has also not deposed anything against the appellant and has attributed cruelty only against Makundilal. He has however deposed that the appellant has written a letter (Ex.P/5) to him in 6. I have perused the letters Ex.P/5, Ex.P/8-A and Ex. P/9 which have been allegedly written by the appellant, from none of the letters it can be said that appellant had treated his deceased wife Saroj with cruelty. Mere expression in the letters that he intends to divorce her would not amount an act of abetting her to commit suicide. It is pertinent to mention here that the letters were written about eleven months and more prior to the date of incident and from the close scrutiny of the aforesaid letters it is also clear that the appellant had not disclosed to his wife Saroj about his intention to divorce her. Thus the alleged act of writing of the alleged letters disclosing his intention to divorce his wife Saroj that too much prior to the date of incident is not an act of abetment to commit suicide. 7. Thus the alleged act of writing of the alleged letters disclosing his intention to divorce his wife Saroj that too much prior to the date of incident is not an act of abetment to commit suicide. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law, and is therefore set aside. Appeal is allowed, the appellant stands acquitted he is already on bail his bail bond shall stand discharged.