Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1150 (MP)

Raman Singh v. State of M. P.

2010-11-19

SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
JUDGMENT Sushma Shrivastava, J. 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 297/87, decided on 4.08.95. 2. Appellant has been convicted under Section 498A, 306 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the respective offences, by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. According to prosecution, deceased Kesar Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to Appellant Raman Singh six-seven years prior to the occurrence. Appellant Raman Singh and other co-accused persons, namely, Mangal Singh, Sudha Bai and Rakesh, being father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, used to harass her for bringing less dowry from her parents. Appellant and other co-accused persons also subjected the deceased to 'marpeet' and cruelty in order to fulfill their demand of dowry. As a result of harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased by the Appellant and other co-accused persons, deceased Kesar Bai committed suicide on 10.3.87 by hanging herself by means of a rope at the house of Appellant. The intimation of her death was given to the Police by the father of the Appellant, on the basis of which merg intimation was recorded and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination. As per postmortem report, death of deceased Kesar Bai occurred due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Her viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination. The rope used in the commission of suicide was also seized by the Police and was sent for the opinion of doctor. After merg inquiry, an offence was registered against the Appellant and other three co-accused persons. After due investigation, Appellant and other co-accused persons were prosecuted under Section 498A and 306 of IPC and were put to trial. 4. Appellant and other co-accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. After merg inquiry, an offence was registered against the Appellant and other three co-accused persons. After due investigation, Appellant and other co-accused persons were prosecuted under Section 498A and 306 of IPC and were put to trial. 4. Appellant and other co-accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the three co-accused persons of the charges levelled against them, but found Appellant Raman Singh guilty under Section 306 and 498A of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 6. Arguments of both the sides were heard. Record of the lower court perused. 7. It was not disputed that deceased Kesar Bai was married to Appellant Raman Singh. It was also no longer disputed that deceased Kesar Bai died as a result of hanging in her nuptial home. The merg intimation (Ex.P-5) recorded by S.H.O. B.S. Parihar (P.W-11) at the instance of father of the Appellant also indicated that deceased Kesar Bai had hanged herself by means of a rope in the house of Appellant and died on 10.3.87 at village Babaiya. It is also reflected from the testimony of Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1), Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), Shambhu Singh (P.W-3) and Rama Bai (P.W-8) that on being informed of the incident, they had gone to village Babaiya and found the deceased hanging in her matrimonial home at village Babaiya. 8. Dr. A. P. Neel (P.W-12), who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Kesar Bai, found that saliva was dribbling through left angle of mouth, face was cyanosed and tongue was congested and was caught between teeth, eyes were closed and congested; there was also a ligature mark present extending from right side of neck to the front and left side and back of the neck interrupted at sub mastoid region below the ear on right side and it was oblique in direction, contused and dry, width 3/4" x 1/2" deep. It was between chin and cricoid cartilage at sub-mandibular region. According to Dr. A.P. Neel (P.W-12), ligature mark was antemortem and was caused by a rope. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased Kesar Bai was asphyxia as a result of hanging. The postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P-10) is also placed on record. 9. It was between chin and cricoid cartilage at sub-mandibular region. According to Dr. A.P. Neel (P.W-12), ligature mark was antemortem and was caused by a rope. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased Kesar Bai was asphyxia as a result of hanging. The postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P-10) is also placed on record. 9. It was thus clear from the aforesaid evidence, which remained virtually unchallenged, that deceased Kesar Bai died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging at the place of Appellant. There was no such case, nor any material to show that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that deceased Kesar Bai committed suicide by hanging herself at the place of the Appellant . 10. The next crucial question that emerges for consideration is whether the Appellant abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased ? 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that there was no such positive evidence on record that deceased died or committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, the trial court also recorded a finding that her death occurred after a period of seven years of her marriage; as such, the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act were not applicable and no presumption could be drawn against the Appellant under Section 113A of the Evidence Act that he abetted the commission of suicide. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the Appellant under Section 306 of IPC without there being any direct or cogent evidence that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel, however, did not challenge the finding of guilt of the Appellant under Section 498A of IPC. 12. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the Appellant both under Section 498A and 306 of IPC. 13. On perusal of the entire evidence, it is revealed that there is no such positive evidence on record that deceased Kesar Bai died within seven years of her marriage. 12. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the Appellant both under Section 498A and 306 of IPC. 13. On perusal of the entire evidence, it is revealed that there is no such positive evidence on record that deceased Kesar Bai died within seven years of her marriage. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution including the parents of the deceased, namely, Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), Rama Bai (P.W-8) and her uncle Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1), aunt Tulsa Bai (P.W.2) have given a specific date or year of the marriage of deceased with the Appellant. On the other hand, P.W-8 Rama Bai, the mother of the deceased categorically deposed in her evidence that her daughter Kesar Bai was married to Appellant Raman Singh seven-eight years back. The other witnesses like Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1), Tulsa Bai (P.W.-2) and Buddhu Singh (P.W-5) and Ramkumari (P.W-7) also deposed that the marriage of deceased with Appellant Raman Singh had taken place six-seven years back. Actually it does not clearly transpire from their evidence that deceased was married to the Appellant within a period of seven years from the date of occurrence and she committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. In fact, the general statement given by the aforesaid witnesses about the period of the marriage of the deceased, does not rule out the possibility of her being married to the Appellant seven years prior to the date of occurrence. Although Shambhu Singh (P.W-3) stated in his cross-examination that his daughter was married five-six years before the occurrence, but in his chief-examination he made a statement that his daughter, Kesar Bai was married to the Appellant six-seven years back, and he never gave the actual date, time and year of the marriage of his daughter Kesar Bai. Moreover, in view of the clear statement of Rama Bai (P.W-8), the mother of deceased that her daughter was married to the Appellant seven-eight years back, it could not be safely concluded that the deceased was married to the Appellant within a period of seven years from the date of occurrence, nor it could be held, in absence of clear and cogent evidence, that deceased Kesar Bai died and committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. 14. 14. There is, however, ample evidence on record that deceased Kesar Bai used to complain to her parents and other relatives that Appellant used to beat and ill-treat her on account of demand of rupees one thousand towards dowry. There is also ample evidence on record that an amount of rupees five thousand was settled to be given at the time of the marriage of the deceased with the Appellant, but only four thousand rupees were paid to the family of the Appellant and remaining one thousand could not be paid by the parents of the deceased till the date of occurrence. Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1), the uncle of deceased, his wife Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), the father of deceased and Rama Bai (P.W-8), the mother of deceased as well as Rameshwar (P.W-9) have consistently stated that an amount of rupees five thousand was settled to be given at the time of marriage of deceased Kesar Bai with the Appellant, but only a sum of rupees four thousand could be paid and remaining one thousand rupees could not be paid by the father of deceased, which had led to the displeasure of 'Barat' at the time of marriage itself and the demand for remaining one thousand rupees on the part of Appellant's family members persisted even after the marriage. 15. Although, a few witnesses like Roop Singh (D.W-1), Bihari Singh (D.W-2) and Ramadheen (D.W-3) were examined in defence to show that no incident or dispute regarding payment of dowry ever occurred at the time of marriage of the deceased, but the presence of these witnesses at the time of marriage was never suggested during cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses; as such their evidence in this behalf is not found to be trustworthy. On the other hand, an independent witness like Buddhu Singh (P.W-5) also supported the factum of dispute as to payment of certain amount at the time of marriage of the deceased. In fact, there are no reasons to disbelieve the bulk of evidence on record that an amount of Rs. 5000/-was settled to be given in the marriage of the deceased, but the parents of the deceased could pay four thousand rupees and failed to pay remaining one thousand, which led to the displeasure of the in-laws of the deceased. 16. In fact, there are no reasons to disbelieve the bulk of evidence on record that an amount of Rs. 5000/-was settled to be given in the marriage of the deceased, but the parents of the deceased could pay four thousand rupees and failed to pay remaining one thousand, which led to the displeasure of the in-laws of the deceased. 16. Rama Bai (P.W-8), the mother of the deceased also deposed in her evidence that even after three years of the marriage and Gauna (sic) of her daughter, the remaining amount of rupees one thousand could not be paid. She further deposed that after Gauna (sic) whenever her daughter used to come to her place, she told her that Appellant Raman Singh used to beat her, threat her and tell her to bring rupees one thousand, else he would not keep her. According to Rama Bai (P.W-8), her daughter then lived at her place for few months and thereafter she was sent to her matrimonial home alongwith her brother-in-law on his responsibility that she would not be ill-treated anymore, but after ten-fifteen days her daughter sent a massage to take her back; her son also went to take her back, but she was not sent back by her in-laws and thereafter an information was received after ten-fifteen days that her daughter had expired, then she went to village Babaiya and found her hanging. 17. Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), the paternal aunt of the deceased also deposed that after gauna (sic) and on return from her matrimonial home, Kesar Bai had told her that her husband and in-laws used to beat her, starve her and ask her to bring one thousand rupees, else they would kill her. According to Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), whenever deceased came to her village twice and thrice she made similar complaints. 18. Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), the father of the deceased also stated in his evidence that after return from her in-laws' place, deceased used to complain that her husband and in-laws asked for money and ill-treated her. According to Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), whenever deceased came to her village twice and thrice she made similar complaints. 18. Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), the father of the deceased also stated in his evidence that after return from her in-laws' place, deceased used to complain that her husband and in-laws asked for money and ill-treated her. According to Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home ten-eleven days prior to her death and he had sent her alongwith her brother-in-law Rakesh on his responsibility, but he again received a message from his daughter (deceased) that she was being ill-treated, then he had sent Kesu to bring her back, but she was not sent by the father of the Appellant, then he alongwith his brother Laxmi Prasad went to village Babaiya and complained to the father of the Appellant about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased, but she was not sent back. Next day, thereafter he received a message that his daughter had hanged herself. Again he went to village Babaiya and found his daughter hanging. The aforesaid facts are also borne out from the evidence of Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1), the brother of Shambhu Singh, who had accompanied him to village Babaiya. 19. Ramkumari (PW-7), another paternal aunt of the deceased, also deposed that whenever Kesar Bai used to come back from her matrimonial home, she told that Appellant used to beat her and tortured her demanding the remaining amount of one thousand rupees. According to Ramkumari (P.W-7), last time the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home alongwith Rakesh on his responsibility, but after ten days she received an information that the deceased had hanged herself. According to Rameshwar (P.W-9) also, the deceased had told him that Appellant used to beat her for one thousand rupees and she was not given sufficient food. 20. The aforesaid witnesses were elaborately cross-examined, but their evidence, as referred above, was not dislodged in any manner. The mere fact, as put forth in the cross-examination, that the parents and the relatives of the deceased did not report or called any Panchayat against the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased, cannot be a ground to disbelieve their evidence. Generally, the parents and the relatives of the victim do not take recourse to the Police etc. and try to patch up the things so that the married life of the girl is not ruined. Generally, the parents and the relatives of the victim do not take recourse to the Police etc. and try to patch up the things so that the married life of the girl is not ruined. In fact, there are no reasons to doubt or disbelieve the evidence of the parents, uncle and aunt of the deceased, namely Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), Rama Bai (P.W-8), Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1) and Tulsa Bai (P.W-2) that the deceased used to tell them that Appellant ill-treated her, subjected her to marpeet in order to fulfill the demand of one thousand rupees. Per contra, the evidence of defence witnesses, namely, Roopsingh (D.W.-1), Bihari Singh (D.W-2) and Ramadheen (D.W-3) to the effect that deceased never complained to them of any ill-treatment by the Appellant and her in-laws and she was happy at her matrimonial home, has no significance, as they themselves admitted that Kesar Bai never talked to them. 21. The main thrust of the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has been that the provisions of Section 113A of Evidence Act regarding presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman are not attracted to the facts of the present case, as the deceased was married to the Appellant beyond the period of seven years and there was no direct evidence on record that Appellant in any manner instigated, aided or abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 22. No doubt, as it was not established that deceased Kesar Bai died and committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act remained inapplicable in the instant case, yet as said hereinabove, there is ample evidence on record that deceased always made oral complaints to her parents and near relatives that Appellant used to beat her and starve her in order to fulfill the demand of remaining one thousand rupees settled at the time of her marriage with the Appellant. It was also clearly established from the evidence on record that deceased Kesar Bai died and committed suicide at the place of Appellant by hanging herself soon after she last went to her in-laws place. Therefore, the question would be, whether the act of the Appellant, as orally complained by the deceased oft and on, to her parents, would tantamount to the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased? 23. Therefore, the question would be, whether the act of the Appellant, as orally complained by the deceased oft and on, to her parents, would tantamount to the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased? 23. 'Abetment' is defined under Section 107 of IPC as under: A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 to Section 107 of IPC reads as under: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 24. The Apex Court in its three Judges' Bench decision rendered in the case of The State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1532 observed that since such crimes are generally committed in the privacy of the residential home and in secrecy, independent direct evidence is not easy to get. It would also be profitable to refer to the following observation made by their Lordships in the aforesaid case: Where the husband or his relative by his willful conduct creates a situation which he knows will drive the woman to commit suicide and she actually does so, the case would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 306, I.P.C. In such a case the conduct of the person would tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing the woman into a desperate situation of no return which would compel her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide. 25. In another case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. 25. In another case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 , the Apex Court reiterating the legal position laid down in its earlier three Judges' Bench judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3837 (1), held that where the accused by his acts or continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may be inferred. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case of Chitresh Kumar (supra) summed up the legal position as under: In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 26. In the backdrop of the legal position, as enunciated in various aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, when the facts of the instant case are examined, it is apparent, as discussed hereinabove, that there is clear, cogent and reliable evidence of the parents of the deceased, namely, Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), Rama Bai (P.W-8) and her other near relatives, namely, Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), Ramkumari (P.W-7) and Rameshwar (P.W-9) that whenever deceased Kesar Bai returned to the village from her matrimonial home, she used to tell them that Appellant Raman Singh used to beat her and torture her on account of demand of remaining amount of one thousand rupees settled at the time of her marriage, which could not be paid by her parents. Needles to emphasize, that such oral statements made by the deceased to her parents and near relatives prior to her death relating to the cause of her death are admissible in evidence after her death under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act. 27. Needles to emphasize, that such oral statements made by the deceased to her parents and near relatives prior to her death relating to the cause of her death are admissible in evidence after her death under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act. 27. As discussed above, there was also bulk of evidence that amount of rupees five thousand was settled at the time of marriage of the deceased with the Appellant, out of which an amount of rupees one thousand remained unpaid till the date of occurrence and that demand for rupees one thousand from the side of Appellant's family persisted long and continued even after her marriage. There is specific evidence of Tulsa Bai (P.W-2), Ramkumari (P.W-7), Rama Bai (P.W-8) and Rameshwar (P.W-9) that Appellant Raman Singh used to beat the deceased and torture her on account of the aforesaid amount of rupees one thousand, which remained unpaid by her parents. It also transpires from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and the other witnesses like Shambhu Singh (P.W-3) and Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1) that the parents and the near relatives of the deceased were not willing to send the deceased to her matrimonial home on account of the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her at her in-laws place, but she was sent back to her matrimonial home on the responsibility of one Rakesh, a relative of the Appellant; yet soon after, the parents of the deceased received message from the deceased of her being ill-treated with the result that the father and uncle of the deceased, namely, Shambhu Singh (P.W-3) and Laxmi Prasad (P.W-1) went to village Babaiya to take the deceased back, but she was not sent with them and shortly thereafter deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at the place of Appellant. 28. 28. According to Shambhu Singh (P.W-3), as deposed by him in para 11 in his cross-examination, when he went to Mangal Singh, the father of Appellant, Mangal Singh asked him for the money and refused to send back the deceased with him and at that time Appellant Raman Singh was also present there, which indicates that Appellant Raman Singh was also tacitly involved in the whole affair, and thus his complicity in demanding the unpaid money and not sending back the deceased till the remaining amount was paid, as also his torturing and beating her for money, cannot be viewed with suspicion, else Appellant Raman Singh, being the husband of the deceased, would have intervened when his father demanded money and refused to send back the deceased; his apparent silence at such a juncture appears to be willful. It is also clearly evident that shortly after this episode deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at the place of the Appellant. Needles to repeat that there was clear and cogent evidence on record that deceased used to make oral complaints to her parents and near relatives oft and on whenever she returned from her in-laws place that Appellant Raman Singh used to beat her, starve her and torture her on account of demand for one thousand rupees, which remained unpaid. Such willful and continued course of conduct on the part of Appellant in demanding the unpaid money since the time of marriage, and continuously subjecting the deceased to physical and mental torture on that count would obviously tantamount to instigating or provoking and virtually pushing the deceased into such a situation, which compelled her to commit suicide. 29. Thus, it can be safely concluded that Appellant by his willful acts and continued course of conduct, as aforesaid, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide and she was compelled to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by hanging herself. 30. In the wake of aforesaid, the conviction of Appellant under Section 306 of IPC, as recorded by the trial court, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference in appeal. 31. 30. In the wake of aforesaid, the conviction of Appellant under Section 306 of IPC, as recorded by the trial court, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference in appeal. 31. In view of evidence, as available on record and discussed hereinabove, as to cruelty meted out to the deceased by the Appellant, his conviction under Section 498A of IPC also calls for no interference. 32. As regards the sentence, it was submitted that the Appellant had already undergone imprisonment for more than one year and the incident related to the year 1987, Appellant should not be sent back to jail after such a long lapse of time and his impugned sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, looking to the gravity of the offence, the sentence of one year or so would not be justified for an offence under Section 306 of IPC. Yet, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the incident occurred way back in the year 1987, interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed on the Appellant under Section 306 of IPC is reduced to a period of rigorous imprisonment for three years. The impugned sentence of imprisonment under Section 498A of IPC, however, does not call for any interference. Likewise, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court on the Appellant for both the offences also calls for no interference. 33. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of Appellant under Section 306 and 498A of IPC is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-for the offence under Section 498A of IPC is also maintained. However, the impugned sentence of imprisonment for five years awarded to the Appellant under Section 306 of IPC is reduced to a period of rigorous imprisonment for three years; but the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-, as imposed by the trial court, on the Appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is affirmed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment for the two offences shall, as directed by the trial court, be concurrent. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellant shall be set off against his substantive term of imprisonment. 34. Appellant is on bail. The substantive sentence of imprisonment for the two offences shall, as directed by the trial court, be concurrent. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellant shall be set off against his substantive term of imprisonment. 34. Appellant is on bail. He shall forthwith surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.