Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1396 (MP)

Swati Jha v. State of M. P.

2009-12-18

R.K.GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.2.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.54/2000 wherein the appellants have been convicted under section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to three year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, further R.I. for two months. 2. The trial Court has recorded the conviction of the appellants on the basis of statements of PW-12 and PW-13.PW-12, Madan Singh, is the Principal of the School where the deceased was working as Assistant Professor and PW-13 Kaushal Kishore was also working as Assistant Professor. The trial Court has also taken into account the letters written by the deceased which are proved on record as Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9. In Ex.P-7 no date has been mentioned and in Ex.P-9 which is said to be the Will of the deceased, the date is mentioned as 25.8.1999. Ex.P-8 is the receipt with regard to an incident that had taken place on 28.7.1999. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that deceased, Vimal Kumar Jha, committed suicide on 26.8.1999. The appellant No.1 being the wife of the deceased used to beat and ill-treat the deceased and similarly appellant No.2 who is the father in-law of the deceased and father of appellant No.1 : also used to practice harassment. It was also the allegation that the accused persons used to abuse the deceased. The trial Court on the basis of notes such as Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9 came to the conclusion that the appellants used to harass and practice cruelty on the deceased, therefore, the deceased had committed suicide. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that even assuming but not admitting that the accused persons used to harass and practice cruelty on the deceased but the prosecution in the present case has failed to prove that harassment and cruelty was practised on the deceased with a knowledge and intention so that he will commit suicide. It is submitted by him that there is nothing on record that appellants were having any knowledge and intention that because of the cruelty and harassment the deceased will commit suicide so that the ingredients of the offence under section 306 of the IPC are proved. It is submitted by him that there is nothing on record that appellants were having any knowledge and intention that because of the cruelty and harassment the deceased will commit suicide so that the ingredients of the offence under section 306 of the IPC are proved. In support of the argument, learned counsel relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Ajay patodia v. State of M.P. 2003 (II) MPWN-153= 2003 (4) MPLJ 195 , Ramesh and another v. State of M.P., 2004 (2) MPLJ SN 28, Prabhudayal Ahirwarv. State of M.P., 2003 (I) MPWN 166 = 2003 (3) MPLJ 88 and Aman Singh v. State of M.P., 2005 (2) JLJ 224 = 2005 (2) MPLJ 282 . 5. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the knowledge and intention of the accused persons that because of the cruelty or harassment he will commit suicide, therefore, the appellants have to be acquitted. 6. It is true the trial Court only on the basis of cruelty and harassment which was reflected from the Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9 has drawn presumption that due to cruelty and harassment the deceased had committed suicide but no definite finding has been recorded by the trial Court that the appellants were having knowledge and intention that the acts of harassment and cruelty would make the deceased to commit suicide. Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9 also do not show that the deceased had written that the accused persons were having knowledge and intention that they were purposely harassing or practising cruelty so that deceased may commit suicide. So far as Ex.P-7 which is in the handwriting of the deceased is concerned, it states that his wife i.e. the appellant No.1 was a mental case and she as well as other family members refused to provide for the treatment. On this basis, the probability is that accused-appellant No.1 is a mental case, therefore, for this reason she may be harassing the deceased. Thus, it cannot be presumed that .the accused persons were harassing and practising cruelty on the deceased with the knowledge and intention that he would commit suicide. 7. On this basis, the probability is that accused-appellant No.1 is a mental case, therefore, for this reason she may be harassing the deceased. Thus, it cannot be presumed that .the accused persons were harassing and practising cruelty on the deceased with the knowledge and intention that he would commit suicide. 7. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the presents case, in absence of any knowledge or intention of the accused persons the offence under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be found proved. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 306 of the IPC is hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The appeal accordingly stands allowed.