Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 317 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyalal

2005-03-01

A.K.AWASTHY, DEEPAK VERMA

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant/state has filed the appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 28th February, 1997 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 271/1995 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, of the acquittal of the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that accused Kanhaiyalal is the father of accused Rajendra @ Rajoo and accused Rameshchandra, and accused Mangibai is his wife. That accused Kalabai is the wife of accused Rameshchandra. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased Chandabai was performed with accused Rajendra @ Rajoo in the year 1988. That Chandabai has died on account of the burns received by her in her matrimonial house on 2. 6. 1995 at about 6. 00 a. m. while she was preparing the tea on the stove of the kerosene oil. ( 3. ) THE prosecution case is that at the time of the marriage of Chandabai, her parents have given the dowry. That after few months of the marriage, she was harassed and tortured by accused persons for bringing more money from her parents. That few months before the birth of the child by Chandabai, the amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 was given by her parents to the accused persons. That before the death of Chandabai, they have beaten her to bring more money and to provide them the plot owned by the father of Chandabai. ( 4. ) THAT on 2nd June, 1995 at about 6. 00 a. m. when Chandabai was boiling milk on the kerosene stove, she was beaten by her husband and he gave her push from the back. Thereby she fell down on the stove and caught the fire. That Chandabai was taken to Civil Hospital, Ujjain, where her dying declaration (Ex. P/9) was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Bharatlal (P. W.-3) in presence of Dr. M. L. Malviya (P. W. 2 ). Chandabai expired on the same day at about 8. 00 p. m. and the information of her death was sent by the doctor to the police. Dr. M. L. Malviya (P. W. 2) after autopsy reported vide Ex. P/8 that Chandabai has died on account of 80% burns. M. L. Malviya (P. W. 2 ). Chandabai expired on the same day at about 8. 00 p. m. and the information of her death was sent by the doctor to the police. Dr. M. L. Malviya (P. W. 2) after autopsy reported vide Ex. P/8 that Chandabai has died on account of 80% burns. Station House Officer Prafulla Kashotriya (P. W. 6) prepared the map of the spot, made the seizure of the stove from the place and after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet. ( 5. ) THE accused have abjured the guilt and denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded false implication due to enmity. The Trial Court has convicted accused Rajendra under Sections 302 and 498-A of the I. P. C. and acquitted respondents from offence under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. ( 6. ) THE appellant/state has assailed the acquittal on the ground that the Court has erred in disbelieving the statement of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) and as such the respondents be convicted under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. ( 7. ) SHAILENDRA Choudhary (P. W. 1) has testified that in the marriage of Chandabai, the gold chain, watch and other items were given to the respondents and accused Rajendra. That after six months of the marriage when his sister Chandabai came to the house, she told to him and her parents that the accused persons had harassed her for the demand of more money. It is further testified that the land was sold by him for Rs. 15,000/- and the amount was given to her husband Rajendra and his father Kanhaiyalal. That thereafter the accused persons again started beating his sister and they were asking her to persuade her father to transfer his plot in the name of accused Rajendra. Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) has stated that in the morning he learnt that his sister was beaten and burnt and he went to the hospital where his sister told him that when she was preparing the tea, her husband Rajendra has beaten her and pushed her on the stove and thereby she has received the burn injuries. ( 8. Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) has stated that in the morning he learnt that his sister was beaten and burnt and he went to the hospital where his sister told him that when she was preparing the tea, her husband Rajendra has beaten her and pushed her on the stove and thereby she has received the burn injuries. ( 8. ) IT is alleged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the prosecution has not examined the mother of the deceased and any other witnesses to corroborate the statement of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) and as such on the basis of the uncorroborated statement of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1), the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused. ( 9. ) IT is laid down in the case of Munshi Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar, IV (2002) CCR 120 (SC)=2002 SCC (Cri.) 175, and in the case of Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, IV (1999) CCR 165 (SC)= (1999) 9 SCC 525 , that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity, which is required and if the evidence on record is otherwise satisfactory in nature and can be ascribed to be trustworthy, an increase in the number of witnesses cannot be termed to be a requirement for the case. ( 10. ) THE Court in para 22 of the impugned judgment has dealt with the contradictions in the statements of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) with police statement Ex. D/1 and held that the witness is not trustworthy. ( 11. ) SHAILENDRA Choudhary (P. W. 1) has stated in para 30 that son of Chandabai has taken the birth after eight months of the demand of plot by the accused persons and the payment of Rs. 15,000. 00 by him to the accused. In another breath he has stated that the amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 was given only two months before the birth of the child. In his police statement Ex. D/1, Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) has stated that two years after giving the amount, Chandabai gave the birth to Dharmendra. It is stated by the witness in para 17 of his cross-examination that when he reached the hospital, the accused persons ran away leaving the deceased and this fact was narrated by him to the police. In his statement Ex. It is stated by the witness in para 17 of his cross-examination that when he reached the hospital, the accused persons ran away leaving the deceased and this fact was narrated by him to the police. In his statement Ex. D/1 he has not disclosed to the police that the accused persons ran away from the hospital leaving his sister there. Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) has testified that when his sister came back to her parental house after eight months of her marriage, then she told that the accused persons were demanding the dowry and beaten her. In his statement in Ex. D/1, the above fact is not mentioned. Consequently, it is clear that there is significant contradictions and exaggeration in the statement of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) on oath and with his earlier version Ex. D/1. ( 12. ) IN her dying declaration Ex. P/9 Chandabai has not stated a single word about the harassment or torture by the accused persons. The absence of the allegation of the harassment by the accused persons in the dying declaration Ex. P/9 also creates the doubt in the statement of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1 ). ( 13. ) IT is observed in the case of State of Orissa v. Dibakar Naik and Ors. , II (2002) CCR 205 (SC)=2002 SCC (Cri.) 1128, that the Court has to judge the evidence in a criminal case by the yardstick or probabilities, its intrinsic worth and animus of the witness and Court should not reject the testimony of a witness by adopting a technical approach. In view of aforesaid infirmities, the Trial Court has not committed material mistake in holding that the statements of Shailendra Choudhary (P. W. 1) were insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegation of the harassment by the accused for the demand of the dowry. The presumption of the innocence of the accused is enhanced on account of his acquittal by the Court. It is laid down in the case of Harijana Thirupala and Ors. The presumption of the innocence of the accused is enhanced on account of his acquittal by the Court. It is laid down in the case of Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, III (2002) CCR 104 (SC)= 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1370, that a duty is cast on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reasons given by the Trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons and unless it was shown that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was either perverse or patently untenable to it, then the interference by the High Court is not called for. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid premises, it is held that sufficient ground to interfere with the finding of acquittal by the learned Trial Court does not exist. ( 15. ) THE appeal is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed.