Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 666 (MP)

Vijay Kumar v. State of M. P.

2006-05-08

S.K.PANDE

body2006
ORDER 1. First ASJ, Shahdol in S.T. No.37/90 vide impugned judgment dated 14.10.1991 recording conviction of appellants Vijay Kumar. Ram Kishore, Jyoti Bai under section 498-A. IPC sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay tine Rs. 200/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of one month. Further appellants Ram Kishore, Jyoti Bai, Sumitra being convicted under section 307/109, IPC have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay fine Rs.200/-in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Complainant Savita Bai is legally married wife of appellant Vijay Kumar. Appellants Ram Kishore. Jyoti Bai, Sumitra respectively are father, mother and sister of appellant Vijay Kumar. Savita Bai (PW 1) on 9.11.1989 lodged the report (Exhibit P-1) to the effect that on 3.11.1989 appellants subjected her to cruelty-harassment in relation to demand of dowry. Appellants Jyoti Bai. Sumitra pushed her into the well and at the instance of appellant Ram Kishore she was being taken out. On the basis of report (Exhibit P-), Crime No. 95/89 under Sections 498-A, 307/ 109, IPC was registered. Savita Bai (PW I) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Abdul Raheem (PW 15) on examination found simple injuries of the description abrasion mentioned in medical examination report (Exhibit P-13). These injuries said to have been caused by hard and blunt object, within 8 days time. Completing the investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted. 3. Appellants abjured the guilt. However, the Court below vide impugned judgment in S.T. No.37/90 recording conviction of appellants Vijay Kumar, Ram Kishore. Jyoti Bai under section 498-A. IPC sentenced them to undergo RI and to pay fine in default to suffer further imprisonment for the period said above. Similarly, appellants Jyoti Bai. Sumitra. Ram Kishore being convicted under section 307/109, IPC have been sentenced to undergo RI and to pay fine in default to suffer further imprisonment for the period said above. 4. PW 1 Savita Bai has stated that in relation to demand of motorcycle, she was subjected to beating by her husband/appellant Vijay Kumar. On 3.11.1989, taking her towards the courtyard. appellants Jyoti Bai. Sumitra respectively mother and sister of appellant/husband Vijay Kumar pushed her into the well. Appellant Ram Kishore in fact directed appellants Jyoti Bai and Sumitra to take her out from the well else all will be implicated. On 3.11.1989, taking her towards the courtyard. appellants Jyoti Bai. Sumitra respectively mother and sister of appellant/husband Vijay Kumar pushed her into the well. Appellant Ram Kishore in fact directed appellants Jyoti Bai and Sumitra to take her out from the well else all will be implicated. As such, she was taken out from the well. On 9.11.1989 she lodged the report (Exhibit P-1 ). 5. Referring to statement of PW 1 Savita Bai, learned counsel for appellants contended that apart from this statement of Savita Bai there is no other piece of evidence to State that at any point of time she was subjected to cruelty-harassment in relation to demand of dowry or on 3.11.1989 appellants Jyoti Bai, Sumitra, Ram Kishore pushed her into the well with intend to cause the death. 6. PW 2 Ranmatiya, PW 3, Savitri, PW 4 Rajkumar, PW 6 Munnu, PW 8 Haridin, PW 9 Dinanath, PW 10 Munni, PW 11 Chotu, PW 12 Jagdish Prasad, PW 13 Hiramani did support the prosecution, as such declared hostile. There is nothing in their statements to substantiate the statement of PW 1 Savita Bai to the effect that she was subjected to cruelty-harassment in relation of demand of dowry or on 3.11.1989, she was pushed into the well with intend to cause the death. 7. On facts and in the circumstances, the appellants are entitled to seek acquittal under section 498-A, 3071109 IPC. 8. Complainant Savita Bai (PW 1) present in person has presented this application stating inter alia that soon after the incident dated 3.11.1989, there was an amicable settlement of all disputes and she is happily living in the company of her husband/appellant Vijay Kumar in the joint family consisting of appellants Ram Kishore, Jyoti Bai. Sumitra and she has been blessed with two children namely Deepak, aged about 8 years and Goldi, aged about 6 years. Savita Bai (PW 1) as such seeks permission to compound the offence. 9. Learned counsel for appellant with reference to decision of the apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, [2003 (II) MPWN 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1386 ] and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan. Savita Bai (PW 1) as such seeks permission to compound the offence. 9. Learned counsel for appellant with reference to decision of the apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, [2003 (II) MPWN 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1386 ] and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan. [ AIR 1988 SC 2111 ] contended that on the line of decisions aforesaid also this Court should exercise jurisdiction in allowing the application of complainant/wife Savitri Bai (PW 1) as she is most happily living with her husband in the joint family consisting of other appellants. 10. On facts and in the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. Setting aside the conviction-sentence passed by Court below vide impugned judgment in S.T. No. 37/90 appellants Vijay Kumar, Ram Kishore, Jyoti Bai, stand acquitted of the charge under section 498-A IPC. Similarly, appellants Jyoti Bai, Sumitra, Ram Kishore also stand acquitted of the charge under section 307/109 IPC. Their bail bond shall stand cancelled.