Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 590 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Parasram Sharma

2009-05-04

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal under section 378(i) and (iii) of CrPC, being aggrieved by the judgment and order or acquitta.1 dated 31.10.1998 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal Appeal No. 53/97 whereby the re8pondents have been acquitted from the charge under section 498A of IPC. 2. Shriram Sharma husband of complainant Manju Sharma (PW 1) has expired during the pendency of this appeal hence appeal against him has been abated. 3. Prosecution case in short is that Manju Sharma (PW I) was married to Shriram Sharma on 24.6.1988 according to Hindu Rights at Tulsi Nagar Bhopal. On 25.6.1988 she came at her matrimonial house at Subhash Nagar, Bhopal. It was alleged that on that day respondents restrained her in a room, used filthy languages and threatened. They made demand of Rs.6,000/- and furniture. The demand of Rs.50,000/- was also made for opening a clinic for Shriram Sharma at Gwalior. It was also alleged that Shriram Sharma had gone to Gwalior after leaving the complainant at Bhopal. She stayed in her parental house. She submitted a written report at Mahila Police Thana, Jahangirabad, Bhopal 7.8.1990. On the basis of it Crime No.116/90 under section 498A of IPC was registered. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court. 4. Trial Court framed charge under section 498A of IPC against the respondents. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and the accused persons also examined 7 witnesses in their defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found respondents guilty under section 498A of IPC and sentenced to RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months, each. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court Criminal Appal No.53/97 was filed before the VIII Additional Sessions Court, Bhopal. The appellate Court after hearing the arguments allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State Government after taking the leave from this Court preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. The appellate Court after hearing the arguments allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State Government after taking the leave from this Court preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. Shri S.S. Bisen, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State-appellant submitted that lower appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The finding of acquittal is contrary to the evidence available on record, hence such finding deserves to be set aside and respondents deserve to be punished. 6. On the contrary, Shri A.D. Deoras, senior counsel with Shri R.K. Raghuvanshi appearing on behalf of respondents mainly submitted that Shriram Sharma, husband of complainant Manju Sharma has expired during the pendency of appeal, since the main accused has died hence nothing survives against the present respondent who are in-laws of Manju Sharma. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the finding of acquittal by lower appellate Court is proper which does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the lower appellate Court has committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents under section 498A of IPC? 8. On 24th June, 1988 marriage of Manju Sharma (PW I) was solemnized with Shriram Sharma (now deceased). On 25th June, 1988 she was taken to her in-laws house. She has deposed that on that day the respondents restrained her in a room and used filthy languages. They also demanded Rs.6,000/- in cash and furniture in dowry. Rs.50,000/- was also demanded for opening the clinic for Shriram Sharma at Gwalior. She was harassed and ill treated on account of not fulfilling the demand of dowry. Her husband had also gone to Gwalior after leaving her at Bhopal where she resided with her father K.p. Tiwari (PW3). K.P. Tiwari (PW3) has also given evidence that cash and articles were given in marriage. Her daughter apprised that respondents used to demand dowry and caused harassment for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. These witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination wherein the attempt has been made to bring the contradictions and omissions from their earlier statements. 9. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses is that the respondents used to harass Manju Sharma for not fulfilling the dowry demand and also caused her Marpeet. These witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination wherein the attempt has been made to bring the contradictions and omissions from their earlier statements. 9. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses is that the respondents used to harass Manju Sharma for not fulfilling the dowry demand and also caused her Marpeet. T.C. Garg (PW2), Radheshyam Patel (PW5) and Madhusudan Atre (PW6) have also supported the evidence of these witnesses that they were told about causing harassment to Manju Sharma. 10. On the contrary the defence of the respondents is that from the very beginning Manju Sharma was insisting that her husband should live separately from his parents. For that reason he had to go to Gwalior leaving Bhopal. The threats were also extended to involve him in the false case. K.P. Tiwari (PW3) father of Manu Sharma was a Police Officer, who has retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Further the counter allegations of the respondents were that Manju Sharma was having illicit relationship with Sanjeev. Some letters were written to her by Sanjeev. These letters have been shown to Manju Sharma (PW 1) but she stated that she has never seen such letters. 11. Thus, there are allegations and counter allegations made by both parties against each other. Therefore, in such circumstances, it will be seen that how far the evidence of Manju Sharma (PWI) and her father K.P. Tiwari (PW3) is reliable. 12. It is evident that Manju Sharma, lodged report on 7.8.1990 i.e. near about two years of her marriage. When her case is that from the next day of her marriage, respondents subjected to her cruelty wrongfully restrained her in a room, demanded dowry articles and cash then why she did not immediately submit the report? She herself is an educated woman. She has passed MA, MHC. Her father was a police officer and retired from the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. They were not so innocent as not to take any legal action if actually demand of dowry was made or harassment was done. It has come on record that Shriram Sharma in his lifetime sent two applications EX.D-7 and EX.D-8 to Superintendent of Police, Bhopal for giving him the protection. These applications are of 8.1.1989 and 20.1.1989 much time before the report made by Manju Sharma. It has come on record that Shriram Sharma in his lifetime sent two applications EX.D-7 and EX.D-8 to Superintendent of Police, Bhopal for giving him the protection. These applications are of 8.1.1989 and 20.1.1989 much time before the report made by Manju Sharma. In such circumstance the possibility of lodging such police report as a counter blast cannot be ruled out. It has also been brought on record that Shriram Sharma obtained the decree of divorce from the District Court, Bhopal and relevant documents have been produced and the finding in that case is against Manju Sharma. In the case it has been held that Manju Sharma herself treated Shriram Sharma with cruelty whereas Shriram Sharma did not subject her to cruelty. No doubt that judgment and decree has been challenged before the High Court by Manu Sharma. Thus, it is apparent that relations between Manju Sharma and Shriram Sharma were not cordial. 13. These witnesses have also deposed that mother-in-law of Manu Sharma used to beat her but they have been contradicted from their earlier police statement. There is no medical evidence to support the fact that she ever sustained any injury. 14. On perusal of entire evidence it reveals that whatever the evidence is given that is against Shriram Sharma who has now expired and there is no convincing evidence against her in-laws regarding demand of dowry and causing harassment for not fulfilling such demand. 15. Section 498A of IPC runs as follows: "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine" Explanation: For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' means -- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 16. 16. To attract section 498A, IPC, it must be established that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide, or the harassment was to compel her to fulfil illegal demand for dowry. It is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract section 498A, IPC {See: Sarala Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra [ 1990 CrLJ 407 ]. 17. So far as the present case is concerned, the story put forth by the prosecution prima facie appears to be false and concocted with a view to falsely implicate the respondents. The prosecution evidence is not convincing and not reliable. Lower appellate Court has rightly discarded their evidence and correctly came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. There is no, illegality. infirmity, perversity or impropriety, in such finding of lower appellate Court, therefore, no interference is called for. The appeal is merit less which deserves to be dismissed. 18. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Shriram Sharma has died during the pendency of appeal hence this appeal against him has been abated.