Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 557 (MP)

Durga Prasad v. State of M. P.

2009-04-28

R.S.GARG

body2009
JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellants husband and mother-in-law of the deceased being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.1.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 12/1997 convicting each of the appellant under Section 498A and Section 304B of I.P.C. sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three years and, sentencing them to undergo R.I. for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three years respectively have filed this appeal. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 Durga Prasad and deceased Kripa Bai were married on 20.4.1996, after the marriage the deceased had gone to her matrimonial house and she also visited her parents house. It is also undisputed that the deceased died of the extensive burns on 13.7.1996 within three months of the marriage. During the course of the investigation the witnesses started asserting that the accused persons had ill-treated the deceased in connection with payment of dowry and as the demand of dowry could not be met by the mother and brother of the girl, the girl was ill-treated and thereafter she died of the extensive burn injuries. It has also come in the records that immediately after the death the body was sent for autopsy and the doctor opined that the cause of death was extensive burns. 3. As the accused persons denied commission of the offence they were subjected to trial and were ultimately convicted and sentenced as referred to above. 4. Shri Pendharkar, learned Counsel for the appellants, after taking me through the statements of P.W.1 Vimla Bai (mother of the deceased), P.W.3 Radheshyam (brother of the deceased) and P.W.2 Ashok Kumar (employer of P.W.3) submitted that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the guilt because there is no positive evidence on record as to what demand was made and as to in what manner the deceased was ill-treated. It was also submitted by him that the prosecution was obliged to inform the Court and that the witnesses were also obliged to tell the Court that what particular things were demanded in dowry and what was the nature of the cruel treatment or the harassment. It was also submitted by him that the prosecution was obliged to inform the Court and that the witnesses were also obliged to tell the Court that what particular things were demanded in dowry and what was the nature of the cruel treatment or the harassment. It is submitted by him that though Kripa Bai died unnatural death but present is not a fit case for raising the presumption in favour of the prosecution against the interest of the accused persons. 5. Shri T.K. Modh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, on the other hand referring to Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and Section of Indian Evidence Act submitted that the prosecution is only required to prove that a woman died in an unnatural manner and soon before her death she was treated cruelly or she was harassed in connection with demand of dowry. It is submitted by him that nature of the cruel treatment, harassment and demand of particular articles is not required to be detailed. 6. P.W.1 Vimla Bai, mother of the deceased, stated before the Court that deceased Kripa Bai on her return to the parental house told her that she will not go back to her matrimonial house because the accused persons would kill her. On that she told Kripa Bai that Kripa Bai should go back to the matrimonial house and after the crop of soyabean and cotton were harvested, dowry would be paid. In her cross-examination not even a single word has been asked that she was making a false statement about the complaint or the assurance which she had given to the deceased. The nature of the assurance given by Vimla Bai would make it clear that Kripa Bai was not ready to go back to her in-laws house because she was ill-treated in connection with payment of dowry and understanding that fear, Vimla Bai had assured her that dowry would be paid after the crop was harvested. 7. P.W.3 Radheshyam, brother of the deceased, had clearly stated that when the deceased came to her parents house she made a complaint that the accused persons were ill-treating her, abusing her in connection with demand of dowry. In his cross-examination it was suggested that the marriage was performed in a community marriage and at that time nothing was settled about the dowry. In his cross-examination it was suggested that the marriage was performed in a community marriage and at that time nothing was settled about the dowry. In cross-examination he was confronted with A to A part of his police statement (Ex.D/2). From the statements of this witness it does not appear that he is not a witness of truth. 8. P.W.2 Ashok Kumar, employer of P.W.3 Radheshyam, clearly stated that Kripa Bai informed him that she was being ill-treated and harassed in connection with demand of dowry. Though in the examination-in-chief he stated that when he had gone to the matrimonial house of Kripa Bai such complaint was made to him but later on he corrected himself and said that when Kripa Bai came to her parents house such complaint was made to him. In paragraph 5 certain suggestions were given to this witness to challenge the character, conduct and chastity of the deceased. The witness had denied every suggestion. The suggestions which have been given to P.W.2 Ashok Kumar in fact were empty suggestions behind which there was no positive evidence. It is also to be seen that such suggestions which could lead to an inference of illicit relation between Kripa Bai and Ashok Kumar were not given to P.W.2 Vimla Bai and P.W.3 Radheshyam. 9. Apart from these three witnesses the prosecution has examined other witnesses but they are not in connection with the incident. At the time of the argument it was suggested that the investigating officer Dinesh Badhai (P.W.5) clearly admitted that at the time of the inquest he had recorded the statements of the witnesses but the same were not filed at the time of the trial. It was argued that for non-filing of such statements adverse inference should be drawn. In the considered opinion of this Court non-filing of such statements cannot lead to any adverse inference against the prosecution especially when it does not appear from the records that the defence ever asked the witnesses or the Court for production of such statement. 10. In my opinion the learned Court below was not wrong in recording findings against the interest of the present appellants. 11. The appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. Each of the appellant is on bail. They shall surrender before the learned C.J.M., Harda on or before 22.5.2009. 10. In my opinion the learned Court below was not wrong in recording findings against the interest of the present appellants. 11. The appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. Each of the appellant is on bail. They shall surrender before the learned C.J.M., Harda on or before 22.5.2009. On their surrender they shall immediately be taken into custody but in case they do not surrender then the personal bonds and the surety bonds furnished by the accused and the sureties shall stand forfeited, the learned C.J.M. shall proceed to recover the amount of the bonds from the property of the accused persons and the surety/sureties and shall issue non-bailable warrants to secure attendance of the accused persons for undergoing the sentence.