Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 600 (MP)

Premwati Kashyap v. State of M. P.

2012-06-25

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
ORDER 1. Present matter is criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Instead of hearing the matter on the question of admission, notices were issued to the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 3. The respondents were convicted for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide judgment dated 8.12.2010 passed by learned JMFC, Jabalpur (Shri Ashish Shrivastava) in Criminal Case No.2776/2008 and sentenced for one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-. In Criminal Appeal No.9/2011, learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide judgment dated 20.9.2011 accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondents from all the charges appended against them. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment passed by the appellate Court. 4. Prosecutions’ case, in short, is that, the complainant Premwati (PW1) was wife of respondent Mahendra. Marriage of the complainant Premwati and Mahendra took place on 3.7.1996. Thereafter, the complainant remained with her husband and his family members for a pretty long period. The respondents were demanding dowry from her and harassing her in a brutal manner. In the year 1999, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid by brother of the complainant Premwati to satisfy the respondents and thereafter, respondents took the victim Premwati to their house. Again after sometime they demanded for remaining amount and on 9.4.2000, Premwati was beaten by the respondents. She went to lodge FIR before Police Station Chorhata but, she was sent back. On 2.5.2000, the respondents demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- again and thereafter, assaulted the complainant Premwati. They took the ornaments and clothings of the complainant Premwati and thrown her out of the house. In that assault, she sustained fracture in her right hand. Premwati went to lodge an FIR at Police Station Chorhata but, she was directed to go to Mahila Thana, Rewa. She got plaster in Medical College, Rewa and thereafter, she went to Jabalpur to her brother. She had lodged a typed report before SHO, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur and on 6.5.2000, a case was registered against the respondents. The complainant was directed for her medico legal examination and it was found that she had a fracture of right ulna bone. She got plaster in Medical College, Rewa and thereafter, she went to Jabalpur to her brother. She had lodged a typed report before SHO, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur and on 6.5.2000, a case was registered against the respondents. The complainant was directed for her medico legal examination and it was found that she had a fracture of right ulna bone. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. 5. The respondents abjured from their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in the matter and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced. 6. Learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 8.12.2010, acquitted the respondents from all the charges of offence punishable under section 325 and 406 of IPC but, convicted them for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced as mentioned above. In appeal, conviction and sentence directed by learned JMFC was quashed. 7. The complainant Premati has alleged in the trial Court that the respondents were demanding a sum of Rs.80,000/- initially and thereafter, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid therefore, she was taken back to her husband’s house. Again she was beaten on 9.4.2000. However, she continued to remain in her husband’s house. On 2.5.2000, she was thrown out from the house after assault. She sustained fracture in right hand. Medical evidence adduced in the case does not corroborate the evidence adduced by the complainant. She has given details of assault by which it would be clear that she was being assaulted by all the respondents in a brutal manner but, it is strange to know that Dr. Ansari (PW6) on examination of the complainant found that there was a fracture of right ulna bone in her right hand but, no other injuries were found corresponding to the assault alleged by the complainant Premwati.There is no eye-witness of that assault except Premwati and therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that she could have sustained fracture due to any other reason. 8. Omnibus allegations are made by Premwati and her relatives relating to dowry demand and harassment. It is established that husband of the complainant was residing in Kherabasti near Rewa, whereas mother and so many family members of the complainant were residing in a village which is not so far away from Rewa. 8. Omnibus allegations are made by Premwati and her relatives relating to dowry demand and harassment. It is established that husband of the complainant was residing in Kherabasti near Rewa, whereas mother and so many family members of the complainant were residing in a village which is not so far away from Rewa. Mangal (PW3), maternal uncle of the complainant has accepted in his cross-examination that mother’s house of the complainant is only 15 kms. away from Rewa and therefore, if there was any complaint to the complainant then, she could immediately run to her mother at Rewa. Leelawati, sister of the complainant has accepted that she was regularly visiting to her mother’s house but, she was not aware about the visits of the complainant in her mother’s house in two and half years of her marriage. It is admitted by the complainant Premwati that she tried to lodge the FIR before Police Station Chorhata about the incident. Thereafter, she went to Medical College, Rewa for her treatment and consequently, she came to Jabalpur by bus. Under such circumstances, allegations against the respondents that they assaulted the victim and threw her out of the house appears to be incorrect. On the contrary, it appears that the victim herself left the house of her husband. No document or treatment paper of Medical College, Rewa is produced. Certainly, if right hand of the complainant was plastered at Medical College, Rewa then, she must have told the history of the injury. Treatment papers could be submitted to the Investigation Officer but, a fresh examination of the injury was done at Jabalpur but, no treatment paper of Medical College, Rewa was submitted in the case and therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant. 9. Looking to the conduct of the complainant, it appears that she had no harassment relating to dowry demand. If it is accepted that such harassment was there then, according to her, there was a demand of Rs.80,000/- and a part payment of Rs.30,000/- made by her brother and thereafter, she was taken by the respondents. However, the fact of part payment of Rs.30,000/- appears to be false. Premwati (PW1) and Phool Chand (PW5) have stated that all the respondents were called to Jabalpur and Phool Chand paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- before some of his relatives including maternal uncle Mangal and Leelawati. However, the fact of part payment of Rs.30,000/- appears to be false. Premwati (PW1) and Phool Chand (PW5) have stated that all the respondents were called to Jabalpur and Phool Chand paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- before some of his relatives including maternal uncle Mangal and Leelawati. Mangal (PW3) has accepted in his cross-examination that he was not aware as to whom demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/-. In para 8 of his cross-examination, he has accepted that he did not tell to the police that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid before him. Mangal is maternal uncle of the complainant, who was not declared hostile and therefore, his testimony is binding to the prosecution. When he says that no payment was made before him then, it would be doubtful that such demand was made which was claimed to be made before this witness. Similarly, Leelawati has accepted that she was not aware that what dowry was given to Premwati in her marriage. In para 3 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was not aware that what was the basis of beating the complainant. In para 10 of her cross-examination she said that her brother Phool Chand paid a sum of Rs.30,000/ to mother-in-law of the complainant Premwati. It is contrary to the statements of Phool Chand as well as the complainant Premwati. Again she has accepted that payment was done by her brothers. She has not given such type of statement to the police. She has claimed that she went to the house of respondents to get the compromise between Premwati and her husband but, it was not a case of prosecution at all. It is no where claimed by the prosecution that Leelawati ever went to the house of respondents for mediation purpose. 10. It is accepted that Phool Chand is working as Assistant Grade III in the office of Deputy Director Prosecution, Jabalpur and he has taken the steps in a very legal fashion. However, no report of compromise was given to any of the police station. A huge amount was paid by the witness Phool Chand but, that payment is no where confirmed by his own maternal uncle Mangal. Under such circumstances, no payment of Rs.30,000/- was made to the respondents and if it is so then entire theory of harassment and demand goes away. A huge amount was paid by the witness Phool Chand but, that payment is no where confirmed by his own maternal uncle Mangal. Under such circumstances, no payment of Rs.30,000/- was made to the respondents and if it is so then entire theory of harassment and demand goes away. The complainant was residing with her husband upto May, 2000 and marriage of the complainant took place in the year 1996. Under such circumstances, it would be clear that in five years of her marriage, no demand was made by the respondents and no harassment was done by the respondents for their demand. No any FIR was lodged about said demand at Police Station at Rewa. Police Station Chorhata was not very much near to the place of residence of the complainant and her husband but, the complainant did not lodge any report before Mahila Thana, Rewa. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that neither there was any demand of dowry from the side of the respondents nor the complainant was being harassed for that demand. On the contrary, she left the house of her husband by her own and she came to Jabalpur from Medical College, Rewa directly. 11. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that entire incident took place at Rewa. No payment has been done at Jabalpur. FIR was lodged in a manner, so that jurisdiction of Police Station Mahila Thana, Jabalpur may be created. He has held that Police Station Mahila Thana, Jabalpur has no jurisdiction to investigate in the matter. FIR was required to be lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, Rewa and therefore, since Mahila Thana, Jabalpur was not capable to file challan, therefore, no conviction can be directed, as per observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. 12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Mahila Thana, Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and to file challan and therefore, according to that fact, the respondents cannot be convicted for any crime, which was committed at Rewa. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents from all the aforesaid charges. No interference can be done by this Court in the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 13. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed at motion stage.