Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 49 (CHH)

Gore Lal v. State of C. G.

2011-02-08

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2011
JUDGMENT Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 226/2007 convicting the accused/Appellants for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 Under Section 498-A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years Under Section 304-B, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the deceased Anita Bai was solemnized with Appellant No. 2, Vinod Kumar in the month of March, 2005. Appellant Nos. 1, Gore Lal and Appellant No. 3, Tulsi Bai are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Anita Bai. It is alleged that on 16.07.2007 the deceased consumed some poisonous substance as a result of which she died that day itself. Merg intimation Ex. P-14 was given by Chamra Sahu (PW-4)- the father of the deceased and after preliminary investigation, FIR Ex. P-15 was registered on 01.08.2007 against the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, challan was filed on 11.10.2007. 3. So as to hold the accused/Appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellants for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that present is a case where unfortunately there used to be some dispute between husband and wife i.e. the Appellant No. 2 Vinod Kumar and the deceased Anita Bai and because of that, the deceased committed suicide. She submits that on account of death of the deceased, her parents and other relatives have made false allegations against Appellants and merely on the basis of those general allegations the Appellants have been convicted. Counsel for the Appellants has referred the statement of Puratan Bai (PW-3), Chamra Sahu (PW-4), Kirti Sahu (PW-5). She submits that on account of death of the deceased, her parents and other relatives have made false allegations against Appellants and merely on the basis of those general allegations the Appellants have been convicted. Counsel for the Appellants has referred the statement of Puratan Bai (PW-3), Chamra Sahu (PW-4), Kirti Sahu (PW-5). Ramesh Kumar Sahu (PW- 12), Sun Bai (PW-13) and Ganga Bai (PW-14). According to her, from the reading of the statement of these witnesses it is clear that after death of Anita Bai the deceased, they decided to falsely implicate the Appellants and that is why the entire exercise has been done. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State Counsel that the conviction of the accused/Appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He submits that had the deceased not been subjected to cruelty by the Appellants, she would not have died within two years of her marriage. He submits that from Ex. P-5 & 6, which are the agreements between the deceased and her husband Vinod, it is clear that the couple was having serious dispute. He further submits that in the case of dowry death no leniency should be shown to the Appellants and their conviction may be maintained. 7. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the evidence of Puratan Bai (PW-3) & Chamra Sahu (PW-4) -mother and father of the deceased, Ramesh Kumar Sahu (PW-12) & Kirti Sahu (PW-5) - brother and sister-in-law of the deceased. Sun Bai (PW-13) & Ganga Bai (PW-14)-neighbours of the deceased. Puratan Bai (PW-3) - mother of the deceased in her Court statement has stated that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Appellant No. 2 Vinod some time in the month of March/April 2005 but the 'Gouna' ceremony was performed after 12 months of the marriage and thereafter her daughter went to her in-laws house along with Appellant No. 2 Vinod. After about a month from 'Gouna' when her daughter came back to her house she had informed her that the Appellants were demanding colour T.V., refrigerator, vehicle, gold, silver, etc. and maltreating her. After about a month from 'Gouna' when her daughter came back to her house she had informed her that the Appellants were demanding colour T.V., refrigerator, vehicle, gold, silver, etc. and maltreating her. She has further stated that the Appellants were harassing her daughter for demand of dowry and therefore on the second occasion when her daughter came to her house, she stayed there for about five months and when the Appellant No. 1 came to take her, her husband and some villagers had accompanied him and her daughter to the house of the Appellants. At the time of delivery of other two daughters of this witness, her younger son had gone to take the deceased but she was not sent with him and the deceased had sent a message through neighbour Chhaila that she was in difficulty. Thereafter her son Ramesh (PW-12) had gone to see the deceased and he was informed by the deceased that she was in a great difficulty due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. According to her the accused/Appellants gave poison to her daughter as a result of which she died. In cross-examination this witness states that it is her family members who had first gone to the house of the accused/Appellants and as they liked the family of the Appellants, the marriage was fixed but no dowry whatsoever was settled between the parties. At the time of marriage, some articles were given as dowry to her daughter and thereafter 'Gouna' ceremony was performed. She has stated that at the time of 'Gouna' ceremony no demand of dowry was made by the Appellants. She has further stated that on the fourth day of marriage, a religious custon of 'Choutha' was performed and in that function when her family members had gone to the house of the Appellants, they were well treated by the Appellants and there was no complaint. She has further stated that after 'Gouna" twice her daughter had gone to her in-laws house, stayed there and came back without making any complaint. She has further stated that after 'Gouna" twice her daughter had gone to her in-laws house, stayed there and came back without making any complaint. According to this witness, there was some misunderstanding between her daughter and Appellant No. 2 Vinod for which a village meeting was convened in the village of the Appellants and an agreement was executed by the Appellant No. 2 and the deceased on a stamp paper in presence of Panchas of the village and thereafter the couple had agreed to live happily. After the said meeting this witness had been to the house of her daughter twice. In paragraph-5 of cross-examination, there appears to be material improvements in the statement of this witness because in her case diary statement this witness has not disclosed the fact that after receiving the information about ill treatment to her daughter she had sent her son to look after her daughter and in turn her son had informed her about the cruelty meted out to the deceased and likewise there appears to be material omissions in the statement of this witness from that of the statement made by her to the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure She has admitted the fact that she is not aware as to on what day and date her daughter was subjected to cruelty. Chamra Ram (PW-4) - father of the deceased has first stated about the marriage of his daughter with the accused/Appellant No. 2 Vinod then has stated that after receiving information about the death of his daughter when he went to the house of the accused/Appellants, he saw the dead body of his daughter and thereafter he lodged the report before the police station and his statement was recorded. He has also made the similar allegation of demand of T.V., Refrigerator, motor-cycle etc. by the Appellants as made by his wife Puratan Bai (PW-3). He has further stated that as there was some dispute between husband and wife, the agreements Exs. P-5 & 6 were executed by the couple in presence of villagers and thereafter the deceased lived with the Appellant No. 2 for about four months. This witness also admits the fact that after seeing the family of the Appellants, marriage of his daughter was settled and whenever his family members would go to the house of the Appellants, they were well treated. This witness also admits the fact that after seeing the family of the Appellants, marriage of his daughter was settled and whenever his family members would go to the house of the Appellants, they were well treated. He has further stated that after marriage when for the first time his daughter came back to his house, she stayed there for about one month and there was no complaint by her against the Appellants. The accused/Appellant No. 1 came to his house for taking back the deceased and she was sent along with him without there being any complaint and even at that time no dowry was demanded. Thereafter his daughter stayed in her in-laws' house for about four months. On instruction of his son this witness got his daughter back to his house and she stayed there for about four months and there was no complaint by her against the Appellants. He has stated that when for about four months nobody came to take his daughter, he himself went along with Panchas of the village to the house of the accused/Appellant No. 1 and the dispute was resolved by the Panchas between husband and wife and both were made to understand and the couple agreed to live happily after execution of Ex. P-5 & 6. He admits the fact that no report whatsoever was lodged by him before the death of his daughter and after about one month of execution of the agreement he and his wife (PW-3) had gone to the house of the Appellants separately to see the deceased but she had not made any complaint. He has stated that on the date of incident the accused/Appellant No. 1 came to him and on being asked he had informed that everything is fine in the house. From Paragraph-7 of the statement of this witness there appears to be material omissions from that of made by him before the police. Smt. Kirti Sahu (PW-5) the sister-in-law of the deceased has made almost similar statement as made by Puratan Bai (PW-3) and Chamra Sahu (PW-4). However in Paragraph-7 of her cross-examination she has stated that the fact of cruelty as informed to her by the deceased was never disclosed by her to anyone till her death. Smt. Kirti Sahu (PW-5) the sister-in-law of the deceased has made almost similar statement as made by Puratan Bai (PW-3) and Chamra Sahu (PW-4). However in Paragraph-7 of her cross-examination she has stated that the fact of cruelty as informed to her by the deceased was never disclosed by her to anyone till her death. She has further admitted the fact that there was some misunderstanding in the thinking of the accused/Appellant "No. 2 and the deceased, there used to be some dispute between them, that is why they were not happy and the deceased came back to her parents' house and she was not interested to go back to the house of the accused/Appellants but this witness and other family members had made her understand that after some time there would be understanding and cordial relation between husband and wife and therefore she should go back to her in-laws house. She has admitted the fact that on account of death of the deceased the entire family was very upset. The family was having anger against the accused/Appellants and therefore they decided to teach them a lesson thinking that as their daughter is no more, what is the use of keeping relations with the accused/Appellants. In paragraph-8, she has stated that when for about one month the Appellants were not arrested, her husband went to the police and made efforts to ensure their arrest. Thereafter statement of the witnesses recorded afresh and then the accused/Appellants were arrested. She has further admitted the fact that to ensure the arrest of the accused persons, after one and a half months of the death of the deceased they made the statement to the police making allegation for demand of dowry and torture. She has further admitted the fact that her family members were keen to see the accused/Appellants to be punished and that is why they are making statement against them. Ramesh Kumar (PW-12) - the brother of the deceased has made similar allegations as made by his mother (PW-3), father (PW-4) and wife (PW-5). Sun Bai (PW-13) - a relative of the deceased has stated that the accused/Appellants used to torture the deceased for demand of motor-cycle, T.V., Freeze and other items. The statement of this witness reveals that she has made very general allegations against the Appellants and she never met the Appellants except at the time of marriage. Sun Bai (PW-13) - a relative of the deceased has stated that the accused/Appellants used to torture the deceased for demand of motor-cycle, T.V., Freeze and other items. The statement of this witness reveals that she has made very general allegations against the Appellants and she never met the Appellants except at the time of marriage. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the statement of this witness makes it clear that there are material contradictions and omissions in her statement. Similar is the position with Ganga Bai (PW-14) who too has made very general allegations and in her statement also there appears to be material omissions and contradictions. Jitendra Kumar Koushik (PW-1) is a witness of inquest and seizure but has been declared hostile. Strughan Prasad (PW-2) is a witness to the Ex. P-5 & 6 has categorically stated that in the Panchayat. there was no allegation regarding demand of dowry and only difference of opinion and thinking between the couple was reported. He has further stated that after execution of the agreement when he met the deceased she had informed him that she was living very happily with the Appellants and this witness never heard any complaint against the Appellants. Dr. Gita Ohdar (PW-6) and Dr. Davesh Pradhan (PW-11) had done the post mortem of the deceased and their report is Ex. P-7. According to them, the cause of death of the deceased could only be given after getting viscera report. Kashiram (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Vijay Kuzur and J. Uramb (P Ws-8 & 9) are formal witnesses. Hemant Khare (PW-10) is the Inspector of Police who had done the part of investigation. Vivek Shukla (PW-15) is the Investigating Officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. 8. According to the FSL report Ex. P-22B, insecticides was found in the viscera of the deceased and if this FSL report is seen in the contest of the post mortem report Ex.P-7 makes it clear that the deceased died on account of consuming poisonous substance. Another important aspect for consideration of this case is Exs. 5 & 6 which are the agreement executed by the deceased Anita and the Appellant No. 2 Vinod and both agreements are having almost similar wording and reads as under: Ex.P-5 - That I, Smt Anita Bai Sahu D/o Chamra Ram Sahu am resident of village -Chhatouna, PS. Another important aspect for consideration of this case is Exs. 5 & 6 which are the agreement executed by the deceased Anita and the Appellant No. 2 Vinod and both agreements are having almost similar wording and reads as under: Ex.P-5 - That I, Smt Anita Bai Sahu D/o Chamra Ram Sahu am resident of village -Chhatouna, PS. Hiri, Tahsih Takhatpur, District -Bilaspur. I got married about two years back with Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Gorelal Sahu resident of village Sakra. Because of some obvious reasons there was some misunderstanding between husband and wife in our matrimonial relations however with effect from today i.e. 21.03.2007 we want to start our matrimonial life afresh and for this purpose we have agreed in presence of our father, brother and other members of the family. Ex.P-6 - That I, Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Gorelal Sahu am resident of village Sakra, P.S. Hiri, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur. 1 got married about two years back with Smt. Anita Bai Sahu D/o Chamra Ram Sahu resident of village- Chhatouna. Because of some obvious reasons there was some misunderstanding between husband and wife in our matrimonial relations however with effect from today i.e. 21.03.2007 we want to start our matrimonial life afresh and for this purpose we have agreed in presence of our father, brother and other members of the family. A bare reading of the above two agreements reveals the fact that there was some misunderstanding between husband and wife and there used to be some dispute between them even so they decided to start their life afresh by resolving their dispute. 9. Having gone through the entire evidence available on record it appears that it was an unfortunate case where the couple could not adjust with each other but because of this fact alone, it cannot be said that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused/Appellants. It is further unfortunate that the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and subsequently allegations have been leveled against the accused/Appellants. In such cases the minute examination of the witnesses becomes a must and in the case in hand most of the witnesses have made stereotype of allegations against the accused persons and they appears to be general in nature. So far as the demand of articles viz. T.V., Refrigerator, vehicle, silver, gold etc. In such cases the minute examination of the witnesses becomes a must and in the case in hand most of the witnesses have made stereotype of allegations against the accused persons and they appears to be general in nature. So far as the demand of articles viz. T.V., Refrigerator, vehicle, silver, gold etc. is concerned even the witnesses have failed to depose as to on what date and in which month or on which occasion the said demand was made by which of the particular accused/Appellant. As the allegations are not very specific, it is difficult for this Court to believe the same especially in view of the statement of Kirti Sahu (PW-5), the sister-in-law of the deceased. 10. Further there is no evidence on record to show that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused/Appellants. Though in respect of the so called demand of certain items some evidence has been adduced by the prosecution but that does not inspire full confidence of this Court to uphold the conviction of the Appellants and that being so benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused/Appellants. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 31.07.2008 convicting and sentencing the accused/Appellants is hereby set aside. Accused/Appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. As the Appellants are reported to be in jail, they be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.