Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 327 (CHH)

Shivnandan Marar v. State of Chhattisgarh

2008-11-12

T.P.SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.5.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, in Sessions Trial No.136/2005 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The judgment of conviction is challenged on the ground that without there being any cogent and credible evidence, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief; Son of the appellant namely Kanhaiyalal was married with deceased Sukhmati who was residing with the appellant and other co-accused in her matrimonial house. Accused Shivnandan who is father-in-law of the deceased is behaved towards his daughter-in-law was indecent and many times he used to enter in the room of the deceased Sukhmati with intent to commit sexual intercourse or to outrage her modesty and used to harass and torture his daughter-in-law. As a result of such harass and torture and indecent behave of the appellant, Sukhmati committed suicide on 26.1.2005 by consuming insecticide. Merg was registered vide Exs.P/10 and P/11. Investigating officer left for the scene of occurrence and after giving notice to the witnesses vide Ex.P/1, he prepared inquest (Ex.P/2) over the body of Sukhmati. Dead body of Sukhmati was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Sarangarh where autopsy of dead body of Sukhmati was conducted by the team of the doctor vide Ex.P/12A. Dr. M.K.Manhar (PW-12) who has conducted autopsy has opined that death was due cardio respiratory arrest as a result of consuming poison. Her viscera were preserved. One packet of insecticide (foret) and soil of the room where she committed suicide were seized vide Ex.P/4. Spot map (Ex.P/5) was prepared. Viscera was seized vide Ex.P/13. On the basis of merg-intimation, F.I.R. Ex. P/9 was lodged. Viscera were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/15. 4. Her viscera were preserved. One packet of insecticide (foret) and soil of the room where she committed suicide were seized vide Ex.P/4. Spot map (Ex.P/5) was prepared. Viscera was seized vide Ex.P/13. On the basis of merg-intimation, F.I.R. Ex. P/9 was lodged. Viscera were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/15. 4. After recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh received the same on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocence and false implication is pleaded. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned and acquitted the other co-accused i.e. husband of the deceased Kanhaiyalal and mother-in-law of the deceased. 8. I have heard Mrs. Savita Tiwari, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent and perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not adduced any credible and clinching evidence against the appellant. The appellant is the father- in-law of the deceased. He has not committed any offence. His behave was not indecent. He has not entered in the room of the deceased with an intent to outrage her modesty or he has not tried to commit sexual intercourse with the deceased. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for warrant conviction. 10. On the other hand, judgment impugned is supported on behalf of the State/respondent and submits that statements of Sonau Ram (PW-1), father of the deceased, Kartik Ram (PW-2), grandfather of the deceased, Lalit Ram (PW-3), Dhansai Patel (PW-4) and Phulsai (PW-10) are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant used to go inside the room of the deceased with intent to outrage her modesty and as a result of indecent behave of the appellant, she compelled to commit suicide. 11. 11. Abnormal death as a result of consuming poison is not disputed on behalf of the appellant. Also otherwise established by the statements of Sonau Ram (PW-1), Kartik Ram (PW-2, Lalit Ram (PW-3), Dhansai Patel (PW-4) and Phulsai (PW- 10) and Dr. M.K.Manhar (PW-12) who has stated that on 27.1.2005 he conducted autopsy of the body of Sukhmati and opined that death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of consuming poison. By these evidence, unnatural and abnormal death is established. The prosecution has also adduced the evidence to the effect that the deceased Sukhmati has committed suicide by consuming poison. Commission of suicide by Sukhmati is not disputed. 12. In order to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I examined the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution. Sonau Ram (PW-1), father of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that the appellant and his wife, his daughter were always used to insult and abuse the deceased. He has suggested the appellant and his son not to harass her daughter and finally her daughter committed suicide. Kartik Ram (PW-2), grandfather of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that his granddaughter had told him that the appellant used to enter in her room at the time of her sleeping with intent to commit sexual intercourse with her (xyr dke djus ds fu;r ls). He has also stated that as a result of such indecent behave of the appellant, once deceased has left the house of the appellant and she changed her decision on the advice of this witness and other persons. Lalit Ram (PW-3) has also stated that once he was called by Kartik Ram and Phulsai. They went to village Boirada where Sukhmati told them that her father-in-law had entered in her room for committing sexual intercourse with her. Statements of Lalit Ram (PW-3), Dhansai Patel (PW-4) and Phulsai (PW-10) had supported the statement of Kartik Ram (PW-2). Phulsai (PW- 10) has also stated that one time he went to the house of Sukhmati along with Kartik Ram where Sukhmati told him that the appellant has entered into her room for committing intercourse and even the appellant has caught hold her hand. He has also stated that after 4 to 6 months of the alleged incident, Sukhmati committed suicide. He has also stated that after 4 to 6 months of the alleged incident, Sukhmati committed suicide. Defence has cross- examined these witnesses at length, but defence has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discard their testimony. On the other hand, these witnesses have specifically stated that the appellant who is father-in-law of the deceased Sukhmati has tried to commit sexual intercourse with her and with intent to commit such offence, he has entered in the room of Sukhmati which she has opposed and even she called the persons and tried to leave the house of the appellant, but on the advice of her grandfather-Kartik Ram and other witnesses, she had not left the house of the appellant. The appellant who is father-in-law of the deceased Sukhmati was under an obligation to save and secure the life of her daughter-in-law and to protect her but instead of discharging his moral and legal obligation, the appellant has tried to dishonor her and tried to commit sexual intercourse with her. The appellant is not stranger and he is father-in-law i.e. father of her husband and unwarranted and indecent behave of the appellant became ultimate cause for the commission of her suicide. 13. The witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution are matrimonial relatives of the deceased Sukhmati. Deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, but the relatives of the deceased had not levelled any charge of demand of dowry against the appellant and other co-accused who had been acquitted by the trial court though the same was easily available to those witnesses. In case of false implication they have also not made any great allegation against any co- accused. In case of false implication they have also not made any great allegation against any co- accused. It appears from the statements of Kartik Ram (PW-2), Lalit Ram (PW-3), Dhansai Patel (PW-4) and Phulsai (PW-10) that when indecent behavior of her father-in-law became intolerable to the deceased then she was compelled to call her grandfather Kartik Ram and Kartik Ram (PW-3) went to the house of the appellant and the deceased along with other aforesaid witnesses where she told the fact to them which was normally not possible to narrate by daughter-in-law to any person including her parental relatives against her father-in- law especially when at the time of narrating such allegation the deceased was residing in the house of the appellant with the appellant and also residing in the house of the appellant along with appellant for 4 to 6 months till her death. It shows that no option except to take some help from parental (relatives) was left with her and her relatives and another member of the society had tried to pacify and resolve the problem. The defence has not suggested these witnesses in their cross-examination that they are having interestedness or enmity with the appellant alone. The appellant and on the basis of any such enmity they have made false allegation against the appellant. 14. Deceased was daughter-in-law of the appellant. She was member of his family under the chain of relationship especially matrimonial relation. The daughter-in-law are not free to leave their matrimonial house or to live in their maternal house when they so wishes in the present culture and system of society. They have to live in their matrimonial house even in adverse circumstances unless the circumstances so adverse, becomes difficult for her survival. As a result of indecent behave and conduct of the appellant, survival of the deceased Sukhmati became difficult and intolerable, then she committed suicide as a result of such conduct and indecent behave of the appellant which was aid in the commission of suicide. 15. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction is based on credible and reliable evidence. Conviction is sustainable. 16. 15. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction is based on credible and reliable evidence. Conviction is sustainable. 16. As regards the question of sentence is concerned, the trial court has sentenced the appellant rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant is not stranger. He is father-in-law of the deceased Sukhmati who was under an obligation to save and secure the life of his daughter-in-law, but instead of saving and securing the life of his daughter-in-law he has tried to commit sexual intercourse and outrage the modesty of her daughter-in-law and compelled her for committing suicide. 17. Taking into consideration the inhuman and indecent behave of father-in-law with his daughter-in-law, the accused/appellant does not deserve any sympathy or concession. 18. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.