Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 62 (MP)

Shiv Prasad, Chutobai v. State of M. P.

2011-01-13

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki , J.- FirstAdditional Sessions Judge, Mudwara has passed theimpugned judgment dated 19.12.1995 in Sessions Trial No. 429/89 by whichappellants/accused have been convicted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Codeand sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years withfine of Rs . 500/- and appellants/ accused No. 1 to 3have also been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo forfive years with fine of Rs . 1,000/-, with defaultstipulations. Being aggrieved, the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. 2.Is is undisputed that Jagola S/o Dhanju Gadari (A/2) and Chironjia Bai W/o Jagola Gadar (A/3) had been died during the pendency of appeal. Case against them stand abated. 3.Prosecution case in short is that Ramlal (PW2),father of the deceased, lodged a report on 28.6.87 at Police Station Kuthla to the effect that her daughter Galabai (deceased) was married with Shiv Prasad (A/1). Hefurther alleged that Shiv Prasad (A/1) and hismother, father and sister (A/2, A/3 and A/4) were committed cruelty with Galabai . Once Galabai was beaten,therefore, a Panchayat was assembled and Panchayat imposed the fine of Rs .61/- on appellant No. 2 Jagola , father-in-law, ofdeceased. According to the complainant, Galabai diedin her matrimonial house. On the basis of aforesaid report A.A. Khan (PW9)registered a Marg and during Marg investigation, he prepared the panchnama of dead bodyEx.P/3. Dead body of Galabai was sent for postmortem.Dr. Smt . M. Thakur (PW12)performed the postmortem on the body of deceased and opined that there was foulsmell from the body of the deceased, therefore shecould not be able to opine the cause of death. She preserved the vicra which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar , in which Assistant Chemical Examiner found ZincOxide (powder of rat killer). 4.After usual investigation appellants/accused were charge sheeted. Learned Trial Court framed the charges under Section 306 and498-A of IPC against them . The appellants/accusedabjured the charges and pleaded innocence. 5.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appraisal of the evidence on record,convicted and sentenced appellants mentioned herein above. 6.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant No. 4 Chutobai is the nand of deceasedand she was remained with her matrimonial house which is far away from theplace of incident. He further submitted that main allegation was againstappellants No. 2 and 3 ( Jagola and Chironjia Bai ). 6.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant No. 4 Chutobai is the nand of deceasedand she was remained with her matrimonial house which is far away from theplace of incident. He further submitted that main allegation was againstappellants No. 2 and 3 ( Jagola and Chironjia Bai ). Since both ofappellants/ accused died during the trial of this appeal, the same is alreadystand abated against them. He further submitted that appellant No. 1 Shiv Prasad has remained in custody for about eight monthssince complainant Ramlal , father of deceased Galabai , entered into a compromise with appellants and didnot want to prosecute them, in these circumstances, if appellant No. 1 Shiv Prasad is convicted for the period of sentence alreadyundergone then end of justice would be meet out. 7.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for State justified and supported theimpugned judgment. 8.I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. Itreveals from the evidence of Meerabai (PW1) and Ramlal (PW2) and the fact that there was a Panchayat assembled, appellant No. 2 Jagola (since deceased) was fined Rs . 61/-. In thesecircumstances, for causing the cruelty, appellant No.2 Jagola and his wife Chironjia was responsible along withappellant No. 1 Shiv Prasad. It is undisputed that Galabai was died due to consuming the poison. 9.From the evidence of Meerabai (PW1) and Sunderiyabai (PW3), it is clearly established that marriageof Galabai and appellant No. 1 Shiv Prasad was solemnized ten years back to the date of incident. In thesecircumstances, without specific evidence in regard to instigation, conspiracyor adding by appellants, it cannot be presumed that she committed suicide dueto cruelty caused by appellants to her. In these circumstances, the offenceunder Section 306 of IPC cannot be said to be made out against the appellantNo. 1 and therefore, he be acquitted to the charge under Section 306 of IPC. 10.On careful scanning of evidence on record, it is found that appellant No. 4 Chutobai is a nand and she is amarried lady, it cannot be presumed that she was remained at his paternal houseand committed cruelty to deceased Galabai . In thesecircumstances, there is no reliable evidence on record against appellant No. 4 Chutobai and she is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Sheis hereby acquitted to the charges under Section 498-A of IPC. In thesecircumstances, there is no reliable evidence on record against appellant No. 4 Chutobai and she is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Sheis hereby acquitted to the charges under Section 498-A of IPC. 11.Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, an offence under Section 498-A ofIPC is proved against the appellant No. 1, 2 and 3. Since appellant No. 2 and 3had already died and appeal against them stand abated, the conviction andsentence under Section 498- A awarded by the trialCourt to the appellants is hereby affirmed. Father of deceased Galabai has entered into a compromise with appellant No.1 Shiv Prasad and submitted that he did not want to prosecutefurther, in these circumstances, if appellant who remained in jail during trialabout eight months is convicted for the sentence of jail already undergone andfine of Rs . 1,000/-, end of justice would be meetout. 12.Thus, appeal is partly allowed. Appellant No. 4 Chutobai is acquitted to the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and appellant No. 1 Shiv Prasad is acquitted to the charges under Section 306of IPC and his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC awarded by the trial Courtis confirmed. His sentence is altered to jail sentence already undergone (eightmonths) and fine of Rs . 1,000/-. 13.Appellants are on bail. Their bail bond stand discharged.