Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 464 (MP)

VISHWANATH v. STATE

2004-05-12

S.L.JAIN

body2004
( 1 ) APPELLANTS Vishwanath and Bodibai @ Boddi Bai stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 7 years each under Section 304-B, IPC and R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 each under Section 498-A, IPC by the impugned judgment and order dated October 3, 2002, passed by Additional Sessions judge Fast Track Court, Amarpatan, District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 226/2000. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of appellant Vishwanath was solemnized with deceased Sunita on 14-5-1995. Appellant Bodibai is the mother of appellant Vishwanath. Death of Sunita occurred on 10-7-2000. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the marriage of Sunita with Vishwanath and before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand for dowry. Whenever deceased Sunita used to visit her parental home, she used to inform her parents and other relatives regarding the harassment meted out to her by the appellants in regard to demand for dowry. ( 3 ) A few days before the incident, when sunita last visited her parent's home, she informed her relatives regarding the dowry demand. On 10-7-2000, Hiralal, brother of appellant Vishwanath informed the police about the same. Marg was registered at police station, Maihar. During the enquiry of the marg, it was found to be a case of dowry death. Accordingly, FIR was drawn as per ex. P-8. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined 10 witnesses and 2 witnesses were examined as court witness and one defence witness was also examined. The conviction is based upon the evidence of Ram Sevak Patel (P. W. 3), bhola Prasad Patel (P. W. 4), Anguri Bai (P. W. 5), devendra Kumar Patel (P. W. 6) and kalicharan (P. W. 8) who are the maternal uncle, Paternal uncle, mother, brother and father of the deceased respectively. Dr. A. R. Singh (P. W. 2) is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body. ( 5 ) THE appellants pleaded not guilty and their defence was that the marriage of appellant Vishwanath was solemnized with sunita 8 years before the incident. They never harass the deceased for or in connection with demand for dowry. Dr. A. R. Singh (P. W. 2) is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body. ( 5 ) THE appellants pleaded not guilty and their defence was that the marriage of appellant Vishwanath was solemnized with sunita 8 years before the incident. They never harass the deceased for or in connection with demand for dowry. They also pleaded that appellant Vishwanath was living separately with other members of the family and at the time of incident, he was in his field. Appellant Bodibai was also in the field. After the death of Sunita a Panchayat was called. It was further alleged that the relatives of the deceased demanded Rs. 50,000. 00 and as they did not succumb to the demand of the relatives of the deceased they have been falsely implicated. The appellant has pleaded that the deceased died due to an accident. ( 6 ) FROM the evidence of Dr. A. R. Singh it is proved beyond doubt that the death of sunita was caused by burn Injuries and the death occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances. ( 7 ) THIS brings us to the other question as to whether the death of Sunita occurred within 7 years of her marriage ? ( 8 ) HIRALAL Patel (P. W. (sic)) has stated that the marriage of the appellant Vishwanath with deceased Suntia was solemnized 7 or 8 years before the date of incident. Anguri bai (P. W. 5), the mother of the deceased Ram sevak Patel (P. W. 3), the maternal uncle of the deceased, Bhola Prasad Patel (P. W. 4), the uncle of the deceased and some other witnesses have stated that Sunita died within 5 years of her marriage. An attempt was made to prove that the daughter of the couple Rashmi was born on 3-1 -1994 as per entry in the scholar register of the school. But some times the parents of the child do not give correct date of birth while admitting the children in the school, therefore, the entry in the scholar register cannot be said to be conclusive evidence. The prosecution has filed the invitation card of the marriage which reveals that the marriage of appellant Vishwanath with Sunita was solemnized on 24-5-2000. Thus, it is proved that sunita died within 7 years of her marriage. The prosecution has filed the invitation card of the marriage which reveals that the marriage of appellant Vishwanath with Sunita was solemnized on 24-5-2000. Thus, it is proved that sunita died within 7 years of her marriage. ( 9 ) THIS brings us to the crucial question as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand for dowry 9 ( 10 ) RAM Sevak Patel (P. W.-3), Bhola prasad (P. W.-4), Anguri Bai (P. W.-5), devendra Kumar Patel (P. W.-6) and Kalicharan (P. W.-8) have stated that whenever the deceased used to visit her parents, she used to complain that the appellants were demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000. 00. The evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence. They are the close relatives of the deceased. The evidence given by them regarding demand for dowry was too general and full of exaggeration. ( 11 ) DEVENDRA Kumar Patel (P. W.-6) has stated that when he saw the body of the deceased some of her teeth were broken and there were some injuries on her mouth and it was also crushed. But this fact does not find place either in the report Ex. P-7 alleged to have been lodged by the father of the deceased nor in the case diary statements of the relatives of the deceased. The medical evidence also does not support this part of the evidence of the relatives of the deceased. ( 12 ) BHOLA Prasad (P. W.-4) has admitted that after the funeral of Sunita, there was a gathering at the house of Panditji. In that gathering they told Panditji that 2 acres of land should be given to Rashmi, the daughter of the deceased Kalicharan (P. W.-8) has also admitted that after the funeral of deceased, the appellants were asked to give the ornaments which were given in dowry. ( 13 ) RAM Sevak Patel (P. W.-3) has also admitted that the appellants were asked to return the articles and jewellery which were given as dowry in the marriage of the deceased and they also asked the appellants to transfer the land belonging to Vishwanath to Rashmi. Therefore, the defence of the appellants that as they did not succumb to the demand of the relatives of the deceased they have been falsely implicated cannot be said to be imaginary or baseless. Therefore, the defence of the appellants that as they did not succumb to the demand of the relatives of the deceased they have been falsely implicated cannot be said to be imaginary or baseless. ( 14 ) DEVENDRA Kumar Pathak, the brother of the deceased has stated in para 10 of his statement that at the time of marriage, the appellants did not ask for anything. Appellant Vishwanath knew that their financial condition is not good. It is difficult to believe that with this knowledge, the appellants will demand a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 from the parents of the deceased about whom he knew that they were poor persons. ( 15 ) THE parents and brother of the deceased have also admitted that they used to tell appellant Vishwanath that he should not demand money from Sunita and everytime the appellant Vishwanath used to assure them that in future he will not demand the money. It is difficult to believe that Vishwanath went on asking for money despite several assurances that he will not demand for money. ( 16 ) ON close scrutiny of the evidence of the above relatives of the deceased, I find that it suffers from contradictions on material points. They had motive to speak against the appellant. It appears that the story about harassment and demand for dowry was put forth only because Sunita had died. The parents of the deceased used to readily send their daughter with the appellant. It is quite unlikely that if the accused constantly demanded Rs. 50,000. 00 and kept threatening Sunita of dire consequences if the demand was not complied with, even the parents readily send their daughter with her husband. The prosecution has, therefore, not been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. ( 17 ) IN this case, the possibility of accidental death cannot be ruled out. At the time of incident, the appellants were in their field. The observations made by the incharge (sic)scene of the crime, Mobile unit, Satna demonstrates that it can be a case of accidental death. The prosecution case is that kerosene was sprinkled either by the deceased herself or somebody else poured the same on her but the doctor who conducted the post-mortem does not say that there was smell of kerosene on the body of the deceased. The prosecution case is that kerosene was sprinkled either by the deceased herself or somebody else poured the same on her but the doctor who conducted the post-mortem does not say that there was smell of kerosene on the body of the deceased. The cloth and other seized articles were sent to FSL, Sagar with a question as to whether there was presence of kerosene on any of the articles but the report of FSL has not been produced. The only inference will be that the report was against the prosecution. In the absence of smell of kerosene, the possibility of death being accidental cannot be ruled out. ( 18 ) WHERE the parents of the deceased were not capable of arranging for Rs. 50,000. 00, the allegation of so called demand appears to be unnatural. The relatives of the deceased were obviously angry against the appellants and had every reason to involve the appellants in the offence. ( 19 ) THE statements of the relatives of the deceased during investigation were recorded long after the incident. The incident occurred on 10-7-2000. The statement of ram Sevak, maternal uncle of the deceased were recorded on 24-7-2000. The statement of the mother and brother of the deceased were recorded on 7-8-2000. The statement of Bhola Prasad, uncle of the deceased was recorded on 11-8-2000. ( 20 ) INVESTIGATION Officer must record the statement promptly in order to inspire confidence in such statements. An unexplained delay in examining a crucial witness would render the witnesses unreliable. Where the statements of relatives were recorded after long delay and no explanation of delay were offered, the evidence of witnesses cannot be relied upon where only general allegations of demand for dowry were made against the husband and other family members and there was no clear and cogent evidence involving them in demand for dowry. ( 21 ) IT cannot be said that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry. Such demand should be specific and must not be fake. It is unfortunate that the trial Court did not properly consider the evidence to reach the conclusion that the appellants were guilty for the offence. The trial Court committed an error in concluding that the appellants were guilty of the offence. Such demand should be specific and must not be fake. It is unfortunate that the trial Court did not properly consider the evidence to reach the conclusion that the appellants were guilty for the offence. The trial Court committed an error in concluding that the appellants were guilty of the offence. It was crucial and necessary that deceased Sunita was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death for or in connection with demand for dowry and the same was not established. ( 22 ) UNDER these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable. ( 23 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted. Appellant No. 2 Bodibai is on bail, her bail bonds are discharged. Appellant Vishwanath is in custody, he be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. .