Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1265 (MP)

Kashiram v. State of M. P.

2005-12-09

MANJUSHA P.NAMJOSHI

body2005
JUDGMENT This appeal under section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the accused against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by Second Additional Sessions Judge. Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 7611988, decided 5.10.1990. Sole appellant Kashiram was charged and prosecuted for commission of offence under section 498A and 306 IPC. on the ground that on 27.4.1999 at noon in village Raitpura he had subjected her wife Prabha to cruelty and abeted her to commit suicide. Learned trial Court. after appreciating the evidence available on record. has found the charges proved against the appellant and has, accordingly, awarded punishment of two years under section 498-A and three years punishment under section 306 IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is as under: On the relevant date, that is on 27th April 1988 accused husband of the deceased was working on his agriculture field. It was about noon when Prabha Devi came from home taking meals for the accused. Accused roused to anger as she did not bring meals in time since he was hungry as he could not get meals since last day. In order to give vent to his anger he gave her beating by stem of Juwar (Thatera). Thereafter, Prabha went to her house and committed suicide by strangulating herself by hanging a rope. Police, Lighora of District Tikamgarh registered a case under section 174 CrPC and after investigation it was found that the accused had subjected her to cruelty for dowry and abeted her to commit suicide. S.H.O. Registered FIR (Exhibit (P-10). Postmortem was performed by Dr. H.N. Mishra who found that the death of Prabha was due to strangulation. Exhibit P-9A is his postmortem report. On charge sheet being filed after completion of the investigation before Court, appel1ant-accused denied his guilt and pleaded that he has falsely been implicated in the case. In the light of the aforesaid evidence available on record. learned counsel for the parties have not disputed that Prabha Devi had met with a suicide death. Thus, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter any further. The case of the prosecution in misguided and misconceived. The only incidence which happened to commit suicide was that the accused gave beating to the deceased publicly. No question regarding demand of dowry was discussed by the couple on the spot. Thus, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter any further. The case of the prosecution in misguided and misconceived. The only incidence which happened to commit suicide was that the accused gave beating to the deceased publicly. No question regarding demand of dowry was discussed by the couple on the spot. However, whole investigation and evidence produced by the prosecution was regarding demand of dowry. However, Radhika (PW 2), Mansukh (PW 3), Janki (PW 4). Nandu (PW 10) are declared hostile to the prosecution who have not supported the case of the prosecution. These witnesses are absolutely hostile. (PW 1) Dhanu who is father of the accused has also not supported the case of the prosecution though he has not been declared hostile. PW 6 Kallu Kotwar says that he saw the body of Prabha was hanging on Miyari in the ceiling of the room. The witness was thereafter declared hostile on the other points what is disclosed by the evidence of this witness is that she was found dead and hanged. Mukundilal (PW 7) and Kalawati (PW 9) are parents of the deceased. In their lengthy statement and searching cross-examination. they say that accused used to demand dowry. She was not happy in bridegroom's house. She used to narrate to her friends about the behaviour of her husband and about demand of dowry. None of the friends has been examined. The statements of these two witnesses are full of exaggerations. contradictions and omissions and their statements have no evidentiary value. In any case, they do not know about beating given by the accused to the deceased. Dr. Mishra (PW 11) had performed postmortem on the body of the deceased. PW 12 S.B. Singh Parihar is investigating Officer whose evidence is of formal nature. The evidence of PW 5 Sundarlal is only relevant in the case who says that he saw the accused beating Prabhadevi by Thatera (Stem of Juwar). Thereafter, Prabhadevi and accused came to him. This witness asked them not to quarrel. Thereafter Kashiram took his meals and Prabhadevi left for her home. In the evening he came to know that Prabhadevi has committed suicide. In cross examination there are contradictions and omissions but are not material one, which may affect adversely to the prosecution. Thereafter, Prabhadevi and accused came to him. This witness asked them not to quarrel. Thereafter Kashiram took his meals and Prabhadevi left for her home. In the evening he came to know that Prabhadevi has committed suicide. In cross examination there are contradictions and omissions but are not material one, which may affect adversely to the prosecution. In the last paragraph of his statement he says that Prabhadevi used to cast wanton glances at others but not with him. But this statement has no bearing on the merits of the case. Thus, this is the total evidence. Beating one's wife per se will not amount to abetment to the victim to commit suicide. The leading case is of Panchram adn Samailal V. State. 1971 JLJ 80 . in which it was said that "the behaviour of the husband may be a cause far suicide of his wife, but that cannot be equated with abetment which requires a positive step to be taken by a person to induce the commission of the offence." Here, in the case there is absolutely nothing to show as to what if any, positive steps were taken by the applicant to induce his deceased wife Prabhadevi. Thus, no case is made out against the accused under section 306 IPC. But in any case, it is proved by the prosecution that Sunderlal (PW 5) was eye witness whose statement was recorded during investigation under section 174 CrPC. This fact also appears to be correct. FIR is also perused. Therefore. there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Thus, prosecution has proved that accused gave beating to his deceased wife publicly in open field and thereby subjected her to cruelty. The accused has committed physical injury by beating her resulting in mental injury though it may not be a ground in itself for committing suicide. The charge framed by the trial Court reveals that the word 'hurt' has been used in it. For the purposes of this section the meanting of the word 'injury' is synonymous with the words 'hurt' or 'harm'. The dictionary meaning of the word 'harm' is physical, mental or moral injury. 'Hurt' means to cause physical injury or pain to somebody or oneself. 'Injury' means physical harm to a person or an animal. 'Cruelty' means behaviour that causes pain or suffering to others, especially intentionally. The dictionary meaning of the word 'harm' is physical, mental or moral injury. 'Hurt' means to cause physical injury or pain to somebody or oneself. 'Injury' means physical harm to a person or an animal. 'Cruelty' means behaviour that causes pain or suffering to others, especially intentionally. The definition of 'hurt' under section 319 of the IPC says that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. The word 'injury' has been defined in section 44 IPC which means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the accused has by beating his deceased wife publicly has caused hurt and thereby subjected her to cruelty as defined in section 498A IPC and thereby committed offence under section 498A of the IPC. In the result appeal of the appellants is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence under section 306 IPC passed by trial Court is set aside but conviction under section 498A IPC is upheld. The incident is of 27.4.1998. The appeal was filed on 23.10.1990. It is more than 15 years that the accused is facing the prosecution. Therefore, there is no purpose to send the accused to jail. The ends or justice will be served if accused is sufficiently punished. Looking to he circumstances of the case. nature of offence and circumstances under which offence was committed. the period of detention from 29.4.1988 to 12.5.1988 is treated to be sentence in the case and he is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand (Rs. 1,000/-) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused shall forthwith deposit the line amount in the trial Court. The trial Court should draw recovery proceeding against him.