Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 482 (MP)

Ambalal v. State of M. P.

2012-05-03

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal under section 374 of the Cr.P.C. the appellants have challenged their conviction by judgment dated 25.5.96 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.122/94 convicting them for offence under section 304B of the IPC and sentencing them to 7 years simple imprisonment each and they were also convicted for offence under section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each; in case of default of payment of fine, they were to undergo additional three months simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellants were being proceeded for offence under sections 306, 304B and 498A of the IPC by complainant Gangaram and Gendalal since the daughter of Gangaram and sister of Gendalal, Anita was married to the accused Ramchandra in the year 1990 and being fed up with the ill-treatment meted out by in-laws who used to torture her verbally as well as physically, she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. It was alleged by the complainant that they used taunt her for bringing less dowry and they did not give her food. Even on the date of the incident i.e. 12.10.91 Gendalal received information at 9 PM from one Mataram Gosai that his daughter was dying and Gendalal along with Gangaram, Dhapubai and Kalabati reached Runkheda and found Anita lying dead and it appeared that the deceased has died by consuming some poison substance and hence the FIR was filed. The prosecution machinery was set into motion. The accused were apprehended and duly charged and put to trial. The trial Court on considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated, hence the present appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry have not been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has failed to consider that there were material omissions and contradictions in the star witnesses. The learned Judge of the lower Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. There is discrepancy between the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 and their statements in Court. Moreover the letters Ex.P/10 to P/14 have not been proved to be in handwriting of the husband. The learned Judge of the lower Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. There is discrepancy between the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 and their statements in Court. Moreover the letters Ex.P/10 to P/14 have not been proved to be in handwriting of the husband. Moreover the wife did not want to do agricultural work and wanted that her husband work in the factory and hence false allegations of demand of dowry have been made. No independent witnesses have been examined to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry. Counsel prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside. Moreover Counsel also vehemently urged that all the members of the family have been roped in for offence under section 498A of the IPC which is not true and the Apex Court has in several cases come down heavily and deprecated such practice and in the instant case also Counsel prayed that the conviction be set aside. In alternate Counsel has also prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State has per contra stated that the judgment of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. 5. On considering the above submissions, I find that the medical evidence on record fully justified the conviction. It indicated that the death of Anita had occurred within 7 years of marriage and was homicidal in nature. Dr. Rekha Kamthan P.W.6 has in the postmortem report indicated following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased Anita: Contused area over the forehead (R) side with (disorder bluish black). Upper eye lid 4 x 2 cm on Exp. Extremities, Bloom Seen ante mortem and simple in nature. Moreover on considering the evidence of Anil Kumar P.W.1, Dhapubai P.W.5, Ramkunwarbai P.W.11, Gangaram P.W.12 it is found that there are clear allegations of demand of dowry regarding demand of T.V., gold ornaments and finally a job was demanded for the husband of the deceased Anita. This more or less clinches the issue. And the Trial Court has properly acquitted the accused from offence under section 306 of the IPC but convicted the accused for offence under section 304B of the IPC. This more or less clinches the issue. And the Trial Court has properly acquitted the accused from offence under section 306 of the IPC but convicted the accused for offence under section 304B of the IPC. Considering the fact that the poison was administered to the deceased Anita in suspicious circumstances and in these factual background, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction. 6. Thus I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction for the accused for offence under sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. However, considering the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the appellants I find that the incident is almost 14 years old besides appellants No.3 and 4 are ladies and were on bail through out and have not misused the liberty granted to them. Similarly the husband and father-in-law have undergone almost 3 months of custodial sentence and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to prison at this stage. Hence their custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is raised to Rs.5,000/- each; which shall be paid to the father of the deceased Anita as compensation under section 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Needless to say any amount already paid as fine shall be adjusted. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the appellants shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. With the aforesaid modification the appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.