Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 176 (MP)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAJESH RAMLAL SEN

2008-02-01

MANJUSHA P.NAMJOSHI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THE State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30-9-1998 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Sessions Trial no. 431/1992 by which the respondent, husband of the deceased Nirmalabai, has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC. ( 2. ) IT was alleged by the prosecution that on the night intervening 4th and 5th June, 1991, Nirmalabai had committed suicide within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage with the accused, on account of the persistent demand of dowry by the accused and harassment and cruelty in pursuance of the said demand. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized on 15th May, 1985 and thereafter she had gone to the matrimonial home where she lived with her husband and Rukmabai, her mother-in-law. Though a long period of four years elapsed, Nirmalabai did not conceive and it was stated that rajesh and his mother, used to ill treat the deceased in pursuance of their demand of dowry. As a result of the inhuman behaviour of the accused, Nirmalabai had to shift to her parents house where she spent a period of a year and a half. However, on the assurance of the accused to treat her with respect, Nirmalabai moved back to the matrimonial home but she was again treated cruelly and subjected to harassment. It was in these compelling circumstances, according to the prosecution, that she committed suicide. The accused then rushed to the police Station and informed the Police about the death of Nirmalabai on the basis whereof a case of unnatural death was registered under the provisions of section 174 of the Cr. PC. ( 3. ) DURING investigation it was found that Nirmalabai had committed suicide by hanging herself in the kitchen of which the ceiling height was only 7 ft. Her knee was also touching the ground. The Police, therefore suspected a case of homicide. The inquest was held, the Doctor conducted Autopsy, the notices exchanged between the parties were seized and after further investigation, the accused was indicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 304-B of the IPC. ( 4. ) ON charges being framed the accused abjured his guilt and stated that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of the Police though he was completely innocent. ( 4. ) ON charges being framed the accused abjured his guilt and stated that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of the Police though he was completely innocent. On trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the appreciation of the evidence brought on record acquitted the respondent and hence this appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Cr. PC after obtaining due leave under Section 378 (3) thereof. ( 5. ) WE have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/state. ( 6. ) NONE has appeared for the respondent/accused. ( 7. ) THE prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Mansharam (P. W. 1)father of the deceased and Mangtibai (P. W. 2) mother of the deceased were examined to prove the demand of dowry by the accused and consequent harassment and cruelty. Saligram (P. W. 3) brother-in-law of P. W. 1 deposed only about man handling without referring to any demand emanating from the side of the accused. Anand Rao (P. W. 4) is brother of Mansharam (P. W. 1) and Praveen goswami (P. W. 5) is the witness who lived across the house of the deceased. This witness has categorically stated that he never heard the accused and the deceased quarreling and deceased was frustrated as she had not conceived despite passage of four years since marriage. Dr. A. S. Tomar (P. W. 6) has referred to the findings in post-mortem and the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased, on the basis whereof he has opined that it was a case of suicide. Kishorilal (P. W. 7)earlier alleged that the accused used to beat his wife, has not supported the prosecution and has been declared hostile, Anoop Kumar Sharma (P. W. 10)Advocate has referred to the exchange of notices Exhs. P-l2 and P-l3 while dharmendra Singh Choudhary (P. W. 12) carried out investigation. ( 8. ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the testimony of these witnesses in his judgment in Paragraphs 13,14 and 15. While he has held that the death occurred within seven years of their marriage, the case of the prosecution that there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- by way of dowry and on failure, chastisement and cruelty was apprehended, was not proved in view of the reply Exh. P-l3 sent on behalf of Nirmalabai. While he has held that the death occurred within seven years of their marriage, the case of the prosecution that there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- by way of dowry and on failure, chastisement and cruelty was apprehended, was not proved in view of the reply Exh. P-l3 sent on behalf of Nirmalabai. The father of the deceased (P. W. 1) has also stated that he had been called by a telegram on the false pretext of his daughter being not well and on reaching he found that the daughter was hail and hearty and she had complained that her husband was demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. If the testimony of P. W. 1 is scanned properly and examined in proper perspective, it reveals that the accused wanted to open a shop and for that purpose he had asked for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. There is not a whisper about the amount having been demanded by way of dowry. ( 9. ) MANSHARAM (P. W. 1) has also been disbelieved on the ground that his statement that he had lodged the report Exh. P-l on the next day but in bis cross-examination he has admitted that it has not been mentioned that the accused and his mother were ill-treating the deceased. ( 10. ) MANGTIBAI (P. W. 2) mother of the deceased, deposed before the court that the accused was demanding Rs. 10,000/- and was quarreling with deceased but there is a conspicuous omission in her statement under Section 161 (Exh. D-2 ). ( 11. ) INSOFAR as Saligram (P. W. 3) and Anand Rao (P. W. 4) are concerned, though they had stated that the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/-, there is omission of this fact in their statements Exhs. D-3 and D-4. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved these witnesses. ( 12. ) DUE notice has been taken by the Trial Court of the reply sent on behalf of Nirmalabai marked as Exh. P-13. In the reply Exh. P-13, there is no mention of any ill-treatment meted to her by her husband or any demand having been made. ( 13. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved these witnesses. ( 12. ) DUE notice has been taken by the Trial Court of the reply sent on behalf of Nirmalabai marked as Exh. P-13. In the reply Exh. P-13, there is no mention of any ill-treatment meted to her by her husband or any demand having been made. ( 13. ) IN view of the fact that the testimony of Mansharam (P. W. 1), mangtibai (P. W. 2), Saligram (P. W. 3), Anand Rao (P. W. 4) has not been found satisfactory and far short of the degree of proof required in a criminal case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused. The findings are based on appreciation of evidence which is in no way perverse but, on the contrary, in acco ance with the matter on record. We have already observed that demand of dowry has not been established by the prosecution and it has also not been established that the accused was treating the deceased Nirmalabai, his wife, cruelly or harassing. The only reason that appeals to the mind, therefore, is that on the ground that she had not conceived despite elapse of four years since her marriage, she had committed suicide. Even if it is believed that the causative factor was not her having not conceived, since it is for the prosecution to prove that the causative factor was the act of the accused, the prosecution has not succeeded in discharging this burden. ( 14. ) IT is well settled that if in an appeal against acquittal, the view expressed by the Trial Court which has had the opportunity of examining the demeanour of the witnesses is reasonable, the same should be accepted. We find that the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court from the evidence brought on record are reasonable and proper and there is no room for any inconsistent view. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal against acquittal. ( 15. ) THE appeal is dismissed.