Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 239 (MP)

Jeevan Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-02-25

ANIL SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under section 374 of CrPC against judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in S.T.No. 590/2008 by learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under sections 304-B of IPC and sentencing them each to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and also for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and 2 years, with default stipulation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Bulbul wife of appellant No. 1 Jeewan Singh had died on 11.7.2008 by consuming poisonous substance. The case was registered at zero no at Police Chowki, Civil Hospital, Ujjain and the Marg was sent to Police Station Ingoria where the Marg No. 34/08 was registered. It was found that Bulbul has died seven years after marriage, and she was harassed for demand of dowry by her husband appellant No. 1 Jeevan Singh and her mother-in-law appellant No. 2 Ramkunwarbai. After filing of challan and after completing trial by the impugned judgment the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/S. 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the judgment. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that no report of harassment was lodged during lifetime of the deceased. Further, the evidence has also not been properly and legally appreciated. The relatives of deceased were present in the hospital at the time of preparation of Naksha Panchayatnama of dead body and they have not lodged any report at that time. Therefore, learned trial Court has further failed to consider the fact that allegation of demand of dowry has been obtained by witnesses and falsely implicated the appellants. 4. The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC? 5. Therefore, learned trial Court has further failed to consider the fact that allegation of demand of dowry has been obtained by witnesses and falsely implicated the appellants. 4. The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC? 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court that Shyama Bai PW-2, who is mother of deceased and Acchelal PW-3, who is father of deceased, in their statement they have stated that after marriage of their daughter Bulbul on 23.4.2007, she was living with appellants Jeevan Singh and Ramkunwarbai at village Patya Kheri. At the time of marriage appellants demanded a Motorcycle and they have assured him to fulfill this demand later on, therefore, the motocycle was be given to him. Lateron due to this reason their daughter was being harassed by appellants. When last time Bulbul came to their parent’s house, she told that she has been harassed for brining motorcycle and gas. Later on she had informed on mobile phone that she was being harassed for motorcycle by the In-laws. At about 12:30 a.m. appellants are informed that Bulbul has consumed poison and she is in Civil Hospital. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants have cross-examined Shyam Bai (PW-2) in which she had admitted that her statement was recorded by the policeman in the hospital and report was lodged by her husband and signed on the report, why this report was not filed with challan, she cannot tell the reasons. She denied the fact that at the time of incident deceased was having phone. Acchelal (PW/3) has also admitted in cross-examination that his statement was recorded 5 and 6 days after the death of his daughter. He had gone to lodge the report on the same day but dead body was shifted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no report on record which was lodged by parents of deceased Bulbul on the day of incident. 8. He had gone to lodge the report on the same day but dead body was shifted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no report on record which was lodged by parents of deceased Bulbul on the day of incident. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn the attention towards the statements of Acchelal (PW/3) who in his cross-examination has admitted that he knows Rajesh Verma, who is living in front of his house and the fact that the in-law of the deceased Bulbul had given information on mobile phone to Rajesh Verma (PW-5), that Bulbul has consumed poison. He has denied the fact that deceased was having love affair with Rajesh Verma. He has further denied that he was not having mobile phone at the time of incident occurred, but admitted that his son might be having mobile since two years. Pointing out at this admission regarding mobile phone, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of the knowledge that her brother was having mobile phone and deceased used to talk on mobile with Rajesh Verma but mother of deceased is denying the availability of mobile and telephone in their house and falsely stating that before consuming poisonous substance deceased Bulbul had informed to Rajesh regarding harassment on mobile phone. On the other hand deceased was having love affair with Rajesh Verma and because of this reason she has committed suicide and the allegations of dowry levelled against appellants and his family members is false. He has drawn attention to the statements of Rakesh (PW-7), who is brother of deceased Bulbul in which he has admitted that when deceased could not contact personally she used to contact on mobile phone with Rajesh Verma. He has also admitted that deceased Bulbul and Rajesh Verma were having mobile Sim of the same company. He has further admitted that Indore is a big city but he has denied that his sister wanted to live in Indore with her husband. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry soon before death of Bulbul. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sakatar Singh v. State of Haryana 2004 SC (Cri) Supp. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry soon before death of Bulbul. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sakatar Singh v. State of Haryana 2004 SC (Cri) Supp. 58 in which it has been held that contradiction in evidence as regard timing of the demand of dowry held is a material contradiction which goes to the root of the prosecution case. It is further held that prosecution must prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to the evidence of Shyambai (PW/2), who has been cross-examined and admitted that police has recorded her statement while she was in the hospital. She had further admitted that in paragraph No. 8 of cross-examination that Indore is a big city and Patyakheri is a small village. Her daughter was inclined to live at Indore. She has denied that her daughter was having relation with Rajesh Verma and committed suicide. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn attention of earlier statement of Acchelal (PW-3), who has been cross-examined and stated that before one day of incident his daughter had made complaint to his wife to inform him on phone that his daughter was consuming poison. She has further told that these persons (accused) are threatening to leave their daughter. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this statement shows that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased and she had made a contact with Rajesh Verma. There was something between Rajesh Verma and deceased Bulbul, which led to Bulbul consume poison. Therefore, he has further submitted that since which was none of phone availability in the house of father of deceased for making contact with Rajesh Verma shows that deceased had talked with Rajesh Verma due to which she committed suicide i.e. why the parents of deceased are denying falsely in their house about availability of mobile phone with them. These contradictions go to show that witnesses are hiding some facts and falsely impleading the appellants and also hiding the fact or relations with Rajesh Verma. These contradictions go to show that witnesses are hiding some facts and falsely impleading the appellants and also hiding the fact or relations with Rajesh Verma. Deceased had not told on telephone last time that she has been harassed for demand of motorcycle but she has told that she consumed poison as she has been told to live in the house of husband and before she had talked with Rajesh Verma has admitted by mother of deceased in her evidence. Therefore, it is submited by learned counsel for the appellants that the reasons for consuming poison was not demand of dowry but reasons for consuming poison was some illicit relations with Rajesh Verma. Parents of deceased have not lodged any report immediately after death of deceased. This circumstance also shows that there was no demand of dowry behind the death of Bulbul. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in the matter of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (1) MPHT 209 (SC) in which it has been held that for convicting offence of demand of dowry death cruelty or harassment has to be for, or in connection with any demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the appellants has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahaddur, 2005 SCC (Cri) 218 in which it has been held that initial burden of proof for offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B of IPC lies on prosecution, burden would not shift on accused merely on the basis of prosecution’s allegation that death had occurred within seven years of marriage without even proving the required preliminary facts. 13. In the present case no report was lodged by parents of deceased after the death of the deceased about the fact of availability of telephone facility in their home, intentionally denied. It is evident the fact that deceased used to talk on mobile with Rajesh Verma and she did not like to live at Indore soon before she consumed poison. There was demand of dowry but it seems that due to her relation with Rajesh Verma whom she talked two or three hours before consuming poison and threatened to leave her husband as relation will led her consuming poison, therefore, demand of dowry cannot be held as reasons of suicide by deceased Bulbul. 14. There was demand of dowry but it seems that due to her relation with Rajesh Verma whom she talked two or three hours before consuming poison and threatened to leave her husband as relation will led her consuming poison, therefore, demand of dowry cannot be held as reasons of suicide by deceased Bulbul. 14. Therefore, considering the above citation and considering the facts of the case of prosecution has utterly failed to establish that deceased Bulbul has committed suicide not only for demand of dowry by appellants but also there may be other reasons for consuming poison (love affair with Rajesh Verma). Therefore, he could have not been guilty for demand of dowry. Therefore, learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and accused were entitled for benefit of doubt looking to the circumstances discussed above. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is set aside and appellants are acquitted of charges for offence under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC levelled against them. The fine amount, if already deposited, shall be refunded back to the accused persons. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.