Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 143 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Virendra

2011-02-02

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal by special1eave under section 378 CrPC. granted by this Court vide its order dated 11.10.2004, is preferred by the State aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 18.11.2003 in sessions Trial Case No. 400/02 whereby respondents have been acquitted of charge under section 306/34 IPC. 2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant/State and Mr. Madhukar Kulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have also perused the entire record of the trial Court and have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The respondents being the son and mother were tried for offence under section 306/34 IPC in relation to suicide committed by the deceased Shrimati Rani, married to respondent No.1 on 25.2.2001. The deceased had died an unnatural death by hanging in her matrimonial home on 10.8.2002 and this death took place within seven years of her marriage. There was no complaint against the respondents by any of the family member of the deceased's parental house regarding cruelty meted out to her or demand of dowry from her till the date she committed suicide by hanging on 10.8.2002. The information of suicide by the deceased was given to the police by none else but brother of respondent No.1 and son of respondent No.2. Panchayatnama of dead body of the deceased was prepared which is Ex. P/3 and bears the signatures of the mother and brother of the deceased, besides signatures of other persons. This Panchayatnama (Ex.P/3) on its back contains an opinion of SHO regarding cause of death of the deceased and a perusal of the same would show that the deceased had committed suicide of her own without any instigation or abetment to her from anybody. No member of the parental family of the deceased made any murmur of complaint either to the Police or to any other authority about the deceased being treated with cruelty, much less, in connection with demand of dowry, even after they came to know about the death of the deceased by hanging in her matrimonial home on 10.8.2002. No member of the parental family of the deceased made any murmur of complaint either to the Police or to any other authority about the deceased being treated with cruelty, much less, in connection with demand of dowry, even after they came to know about the death of the deceased by hanging in her matrimonial home on 10.8.2002. A suicide note in the hand writing of the deceased, found tied with a comer of her saree which the deceased was wearing at the time of her death, was recovered by the Police and the said suicide note is Ex. A suicide note in the hand writing of the deceased, found tied with a comer of her saree which the deceased was wearing at the time of her death, was recovered by the Police and the said suicide note is Ex. P/14 which is extracted below: **eSa Jherh jkuh >k esjh ‘kknh ohjsUnz >k ls rkjhd 25-2-2001 dks gqbZ exj rsjs irh bl ‘kknh ls [kq'k ugha gS oks eq>s ilan ugha djrs vkSj esjh lkl Hkh eq>s ilan ugha djrh bldk dj.k gS fd esjh gkbZV yackbZ de gS blfy;s oks eq>s ialn ugha djrs vkSj oks eq>s ysdj cgqr nq[kh jgrs gS ij eSa mUgsa nq[kh ugha ns[k ldrh eSa ugh pkgrh dh oks esjs dkj.k nq[kh jgs esa vius ifjokj esa vius dkj.k fdlh dks nq[kh ugha ns[kuk pkgrh esa ugh pkgrh fd esjs dkj.k dksbZ nq[kh gks blfy;s eSaus ;g QSlyk fd;k gS fd eSa vkRegR;k djus tk jgh gw¡ ;g vkRegR;k flQZ viuh yackbZ de gksus ds dkj.k djuh iM+ jgh gSA eSa Hkxoku ls ;g izkFkZuk d:¡xh fd Hkxoku fdlh Hkh yM+dh dks dq:i uk cuk, ugha rks mldk thou udj ds leku gks tkrk gSA mldks lHkh eSa viuh vkRegR;k viuh ejth ls dj jgh gw¡ bldk dkj.k gS fd esjs dkj.k esjs ifr vkSj esjh lkj nq[kh gS esa vkSj oks eq>s ilan ugha djrs ij eSa vius ifr dks cgqr I;kj djrh gw¡ ij eSa muls dg ugh ldrh fojsUnz esa bl nqfu;k dks NksM+ dj tk jgh gw¡A esjs dkj.k rqEgkjh ftanxh cjckn gqbZ gS u blfy, es ugha pkgrh fd esjs dkj.k rqEgkjh ftanxh cjckn gks vkSj rqe nq[kh jgks blfy, esa rqEgsa NksM+ dj tk jgh gw¡ rqe [kq'k jguk esa Hkxoku ls izkFkZuk d:axh fd oks rqEgs [kq'k j[ks esa rqEgsa cgqr I;kj djrh gw¡ eS tk jgh gw¡A rqEgkjh jkuh ftls rqe uQjr djrs gks uke jkuh >k nLr[kr 9-8-2002** 4.It is after more than twenty days of the suicide committed by the deceased, an FIR under section 306/34 IPC was registered against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased in which vague allegations of demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased were made by her parents. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has considered the entire testimony produced by the persecution and by its well reasoned order has arrived at a conclusion that the respondents cannot be accused of abetting the suicide by the deceased. The suicide note (Ex. P/14) left by the deceased speaks for itself and proves that the respondents are not guilty of abetment within the meaning of section 306/34 IPC. 5. Para 58 of the impugned judgments is relevant and is extracted below: **bl izdj.k esa ;|fi jkuh dks mlds ekrk&firk ds ?kj tkus ls badkj ugha fd;k x;k cfYd mldk dn NksVk gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz ds nq[kh jgus dk mYys[k izn'kZ ih&14 ds i= esa fd;k x;k gSA e`frdk jkuh dk dn NksVk gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz }kjk Øwjrk ls is'k vkus ckcr dksbZ lk{; ekStwn ugha gS cfYd e`frdk ds Hkkoqd ,oa laosnu'khy gksus ds dkj.k eu esa ghu Hkkouk ik fy;s tkus dk leFkZu mijksDr lk{kh yPNhje rFkk jk/ks';ke }kjk fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz rFkk lkfo=h ckbZ jkuh ds fBxus dn ds dkj.k nq[kh jgrs Hkh gksa rks mUgsa mldh vkRegR;k ds nq"izsj.k dk vijk/kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA** 5A. This Court is in complete agreement with the above reasoning given by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents of charges against them under section 306/34 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State could not point out any reason much less a cogent reason to take a view different than the view on the testimony taken by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents of charges under section 306/34 IPC. This Court is of the view that the suicide note (Ex. P/14) left by the deceased is an important document and cannot be brushed aside. It is a matter of record that the deceased has committed suicide in her matrimonial home with in one and a half year of her marriage. In case there was any abetment to her for committing suicide on the part of the respondents, then while she was dying she would not have spared them. It is a matter of record that the deceased has committed suicide in her matrimonial home with in one and a half year of her marriage. In case there was any abetment to her for committing suicide on the part of the respondents, then while she was dying she would not have spared them. She has given a reason in the suicide note why she committed suicide and the reason for suicide given by her was that her husband being respondent No.1 herein was not happy with her because of her low height and that she did not want to see her husband miserable on that count. The said reason given by the deceased in her suicide note, by no means, amounts to abetment within the meaning of section 306 IPC. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.