Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1329 (MP)

Raja Ram v. State of M. P.

2009-11-30

S.A.NAQVI

body2009
ORDER 1. This judgment shall dispose of both criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 703/1999 (Raja Ram and Ratan Bai v. State of M.P. ) and Criminal Appeal No. 722/99 (Nandoo and Kesar Singh v. State of M.P.) filed by appellants arising out of the same inpugned judgment dated 13th May, 1999 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 45/1998, whereby the appellants of both the appeals have been convicted u/s. 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment, fined Rs. 500, in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment, respectively. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellant Kesar Singh is husband of the deceased Smt. Hemu Bai. The appellant Nand Kishore is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. The appellant Rajaram is father-in-law and Ratan Bai is mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Hemu Bai. Deceased Smt. Hemu Bai died on 10.8.1997 by consuming poisonous pesticide containing aluminium phosphate (sulphas pesticide). 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that marriage of the deceased Smt. Hemu Bai was solemnized with the appellant Kesar Singh prior to 8 to 15 years death of the deceased. Deceased Smt. Hemu Bai was not having any issue. It is alleged that all the four appellants used to subject the decease with currently. They used to harass her and beat her. They dragged the deceased to commit suicide. On 10.8.1997, prior to the incident deceased was in her matrimonial house, and the appellant Kesar Singh and deceased Smt. Hemu Bai executed affidavits EX. PI7 and Ex.P/8 respectively and deceased went to her husband's house, after some days, on the date of the incident she committed suicide. Dehati Nalis EX.PI2 was lodged by Kalooram. Inquest memo of dead body of deceased EX.P/1 was prepared. Dr. Shaheed Hussain (PW6) on 8.11.1997, conducted post-mortem of the deceased along with Dr. Umesh Chandra Sharma (PW9). They doubted that deceased died of consuming poison vide post-mortem report Ex.P/4. However, viscera of the deceased was preserved. It was sent to FSL Sagar for chemical analysis. aluminium phosphate (sulphas pesticide) was found in the viscera of the deceased vide Report EX.P/16. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation both the appellants were charge-sheeted and case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial. 4. Learned trial Court framed charge u/s. 306 of IPC against the appellants. aluminium phosphate (sulphas pesticide) was found in the viscera of the deceased vide Report EX.P/16. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation both the appellants were charge-sheeted and case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial. 4. Learned trial Court framed charge u/s. 306 of IPC against the appellants. All the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. No witness has been examined in defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing evidence and material on record learned trial Court convicted all the appellants and sentenced them as herein above mentioned. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment all the appellants have preferred these criminal appeals. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned judgment, evidence and material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants of both the appeals vehemently argued that deceased Smt. Hemu Bai was issueless. She was mentally perturbed. She was never subjected to cruelty by any of the appellants, there is no evidence that the appellants harassed, beat or subjected the deceased to cruelty and instigated her to commit suicide, there are omnibus and generalize allegations of cruelty against the appellants, the affidavits EX.P/7 and EX.PI 8 were not sworn in by the appellant Keshar Singh and the deceased. Smt. Hemu Bai and learned trial Court committed error in relying upon testimony of prosecution witnesses in convicting and sentencing all the appellants. Contrary to that, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended the learned trial Court did not commit error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 9. It has not been challenged that the deceased Smt. Hemu Bai on 10.8.1997 committed suicide by consuming aluminum phosphate (sulphas pesticide) in her matrimonial house. This fact is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of Kalooram (PW1), Madan Lal (PW3), Bagdiram (PW4), Bhairulal (PW 5), Dr. Shaheed Hussain (PW 6), Jhenu Bai (PW 8) and Dr. Umesh Chandra Sharma (PW 9) and documents inquest memo of dead body Ex. P/l, post-mortem report Ex. P/4 and Dehati Nalish Ex. P/2. This fact is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of Kalooram (PW1), Madan Lal (PW3), Bagdiram (PW4), Bhairulal (PW 5), Dr. Shaheed Hussain (PW 6), Jhenu Bai (PW 8) and Dr. Umesh Chandra Sharma (PW 9) and documents inquest memo of dead body Ex. P/l, post-mortem report Ex. P/4 and Dehati Nalish Ex. P/2. Evidence of these witnesses on the point of committing suicide by the deceased by consuming sulphas has not been challenged during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the appellants, hence it is proved beyond doubt that on 10.8.1997 deceased Smt. Hemu Bai committed suicide. Consequently finding of learned trial Court in this respect is hereby affirmed. 10. Bagdiram (PW 7) deposed that father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of the deceased used to beat his daughter Hemu Bai, after consuming liquor. They used to throw her out of their house. He further deposed that due to house hold work they used to beat his daughter. He further deposed that Hemu Bai came to his house. Thereafter a compromise took place and Kesar Singh and Hemu Bai executed affidavits EX.P/7 and EX.P/8 respectively, then he sent the deceased to her matrimonial house, where she committed suicide. Jhenu Bai (PW 8) mother of the deceased deposed that the father-in-law of the deceased Rajaram used to instigate Kesar Singh to beat the deceased. She further deposed that the appellants used to harass the deceased Hemu Bai. The deceased Hemu Bai was issueless. The appellants did not use to give food to the deceased. After compromise they sent the deceased to her husband's house, where she committed suicide. Kalooram (PW 1) deposed that he went Ujjain for purchasing. His brother-in-law and Bagdiram (PW 7) came by Jeep and informed him that condition of Hemu Bai is not good. He went to spot and saw that Hemu Bai has passed away. This witness is maternal uncle of the deceased. He lodged Marg intimation EX.P/2. Being maternal uncle of the deceased he went to the village of the appellant Kesar Singh and after seeing dead body of Hemu Bai lodged marg intimation Ex.P/2. But he has not stated a single word that the appellants used to subject the deceased with cruelty, harassed and beat her. Kalooram son of Chunnilal (PW 2) turned hostile. He is witness of seizure of affidavits Ex.P/7 and EX.P/8 vide Seizure memo Ex.P/3. But he has not stated a single word that the appellants used to subject the deceased with cruelty, harassed and beat her. Kalooram son of Chunnilal (PW 2) turned hostile. He is witness of seizure of affidavits Ex.P/7 and EX.P/8 vide Seizure memo Ex.P/3. He denied the factum of seizure of affidavits. Bhupendra Uppadhyay (PW 10) deposed that Hemu Bai and Kesar Singh have purchased stamps of affidavits Ex.PI7 and Ex.P/8 from him. He is stamp vendor. Gayaprasad (PW 11) registered crime vide Ex.P/9 and seized viscera of the deceased vide Ex.P/10. Nirbhay Singh (PW 12) does not know about the incident. Virendra Singh (PW 13) is also a witness of seizure of viscera oft he deceased vide EX.P/14. Ganga Bai (PW 14) is maternal aunt of the deceased. She deposed that Hemu Bai was issue-less. She turned hostile and she is not supporting the prosecution case. Surendra Tiwari (PW 15) is investigating officer. Madanlal (PW 3) maternal uncle of the deceased Hemu, deposed that there was a dispute between the deceased and her husband Kesar Singh prior to 20 days of the incident. The appellant Rajatam came to take the deceased but they refused to send her, with him, because she was beaten by the appellant Kcsar Singh. Some compromise took place and she was sent to her matrimonial house. But he has no knowledge and not stated about the fact that the appellants used to harass the deceased and they used to subject her to cruelty. He is not supporting the prosecution case and not corroborating the evidence of Bagdiram (PW 7) and Jhenu Bai (PW 8) in respect of cruelty. 12. Though stamp vendor Bhupendra Uppadhyay (PW 10) deposed that he sold stamp papers to deceased Hemu Bai and Kesar Singh, but he has not produced register maintained by him, to prove signature or thumb impression of the deceased and the appellant Kesar Singh on the register. His evidence is belied by the father of the deceased Bagdiram (PW 7), who deposed that when affidavits EX.PI7 and EX.P/8 of the appellant Kesar Singh and deceased Hemu Bai were vertified, he was present. He specifically admitted that when both the affidavits were typed and verified the appellants Kesar Singh and Hemu Bai were not present. The maternal uncle of the deceased brought both these affidavits. He specifically admitted that when both the affidavits were typed and verified the appellants Kesar Singh and Hemu Bai were not present. The maternal uncle of the deceased brought both these affidavits. Consequently it has not been proved that the affidavits Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8 are sworn in by the appellants Kesar Singh and the deceased Hemu Bai, hence both these documents does not help the prosecution. 13. There is evidence on record that deceased Hemu Bai was issue-less, even after about 10 to 15 years of her marriage. Bagdiram (PW 7) deposed that on account of house hold work her daughter was being beaten. He deposed that the appellant used to bear her. He further deposed that whenever deceased can1e to his house, she told him that she is not comfortable in her husband's house. Jhanu Bai (PW 8) mother of the deceased deposed that Kesar Singh, Nand Kishore and Rajaram used to harass and beat the deceased. Father-in-law of the deceased Rajaram instigated Kesar Singh to beat the deceased. On going through the evidence of Bagdiram (PW 7) and Jhanu Bai (PW 8) it is revealed that they made omnibus and generalize allegations of harassment done by the appellants to the deceased. There is no specific allegation about the harassment of deceased by the appellant or to the effect that they used to subject her to cruelty. Evidence of Bagdiram (PW 7) and Jhanu Bai (PW 8) is not corroborated by maternal uncle of the deceased Kalooram (PW 1), Madan Lal (PW 3) and maternal aunt Ganga Bai (PW 14). It is quite natural that ifthere would have been any act of cruelty done by the appellants to the deceased it would have been within the knowledge of these witnesses. There is no other evidence on record to corroborate the testimony of Bagdiram (PW 7) and Jhanu Bai (PW 8). It is proved by the evidence of Bhairu Lal (PW 5) that soon after the death of the deceased the appellants Rajram sent him to inform the parents of the deceased, about the death of Hemu Bai. Bhairu Lal (PW 5) informed Bagdiram (PW 7) about the death of deceased. It is proved by the evidence of Bhairu Lal (PW 5) that soon after the death of the deceased the appellants Rajram sent him to inform the parents of the deceased, about the death of Hemu Bai. Bhairu Lal (PW 5) informed Bagdiram (PW 7) about the death of deceased. It is also on record that Bagdiram (PW 7) and Jhanu Bai (PW 8) reached the village of the appellants they found dead body of the deceased in the house of the appellants which shows that there was no hurry, was done by the appellants to the funeral of the deceased. They waited arrival of the parents of the deceased. This conduct of the appellants disproves the fact that the appellants used to harass the deceased. On going through the evidence on record, I am of the view that there is no sufficient evidence and circumstances on record to hold that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide and consequently she committed suicide. There is no sufficient and cogent evidence that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty to that extent that they dragged the deceased to commit suicide. There is no sufficient evidence on record that the appellants provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. The generalize allegation of beating cannot be termed as to abet the deceased to commit suicide. There is every possibility that being issue-less the deceased might have committed suicide. As per above discussion, tam of the view that learned trial Court did not appreciate prosecution evidence in right perspective and committed error in convicting the appellants u/s 306 of IPC. I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty and abetted her to commit suicide. Consequently Hemu Bai committed suicide. The conviction of the appellants is not sustainable. 14. Consequently both the Criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 703/ 1999) Raja Ram and Ratan Bai v. State of M.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 722/99 (Nandoo and Kesar Singh v. State of M.P.) filed by the appellants have merit, deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court against the appellants is hereby set aside. The appellants Rajaram, Ratan Bai, Nandoo and Kesar Singh are acquitted of charge U/S 306 of IPC. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court against the appellants is hereby set aside. The appellants Rajaram, Ratan Bai, Nandoo and Kesar Singh are acquitted of charge U/S 306 of IPC. Bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.