Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 672 (MP)

Karansingh v. State of M. P.

2012-07-05

P.K.JAISWAL

body2012
ORDER 1. Appellant Karansingh has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.11.1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar, whereby he has been convicted under section 306 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 1-1/2 years with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo additional SI for six months. 2. As per prosecution story, on 3.7.1996 at about 1:00 in the afternoon first informant Jassu son of Mangliya, resident of village Piploda had gone towards river for providing water to animals, there his grand daughter Lallubai informed him that Bhulibai wife of Karansingh consumed poisonous substance. On this, he went there and saw that she was fighting for life. He asked her for water and gave her water but she could not consume it and after sometime she died. The incident was also seen by Champubai wife of Bilam and Kusumbai. The informant narrated the said intimation to Police Station Gandhwani and Murg No.18/96 was registered under section 174 of CrPC. After Murg investigation the police came to the conclusion that both the accused persons consistently torturing and causing injuries to her and on 3.7.1996 the appellant and his mother Parlibai in furtherance of their common intention abetted Bhurlibai to commit suicide and as a result thereof she committed suicide. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-6 and after completion of investigation charge-sheet for an offence under section 306 of IPC, was filed against the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After trial the learned Court below acquitted accused No.2 Parlibai, mother-in-law of the deceased, but convicted the appellant and sentenced him as afore-noted. 3. As per statement of Dr. P.K. Porwal (PW1) post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by him. Ex.P-1 is her post-mortem report. This witness in his cross-examination has very categorically admitted that no external injury was found on the person of the deceased. On the basis of viscera report the trial Court came to the conclusion that the deceased died by consuming poisonous substance. This witness has not given any information regarding death of the deceased. 4. Ex.P-1 is her post-mortem report. This witness in his cross-examination has very categorically admitted that no external injury was found on the person of the deceased. On the basis of viscera report the trial Court came to the conclusion that the deceased died by consuming poisonous substance. This witness has not given any information regarding death of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the statement of Bhuwan Singh (PW2), father of the deceased, PW3 Nuktibai, PW4 Sajan,PW5 Jassu, PW7 Rajendra Singh and PW9 Kamalsingh and submitted that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant some 5-6 years back. It is also submitted that both the parties belong to Bhil community and in Bhil community there is custom that first they abduct the girl for marriage and later on the body party has to pay ‘Jhagda money’ to the parents of the girl. In the case at hand, a Panchayat was held and in the said Panchayat certain amount was fixed for payment of the girl. In the case at hand, a Panchayat was held and in the said Panchayat certain amount was fixed for payment of the same to PW2 Bhuwan Singh. Part of the amount was paid by the appellant and his parents, but due to non-payment of rest of the amount the present appellant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the onus is on the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take the extreme step to bring an end to her life. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased subjected to constant harassment and torture by the husband and her in-laws prior to her death. There was no complaint by the parents of the deceased to this effect nor any FIR was lodged against the appellant and his mother. It is also submitted that there is no direct nexus or immediate cause for commission of suicide by the wife and would not amount to abetment of commission of such suicide and submitted that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. It is also submitted that there is no direct nexus or immediate cause for commission of suicide by the wife and would not amount to abetment of commission of such suicide and submitted that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that out of total 1-1/2 years, the appellant was in jail from 8.7.1996 to 16.7.1996 and, thereafter, from 29.11.1997 to 22.12.1997, thus, he remained in jail for a period of about 1 month and 14 days, as regards sentence, a lenient view may be taken in this appeal. 10. Considering the over-all material placed before the Court and oral submissions advanced, I am of the view that the appellant has committed offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and the trial Court has rightlyconvicted him for the said offence. However, looking to the fact that the alleged incident took place 16 years back and the appellant is suffering for all those 16 years, in my considered opinion prayer for lenient view in the matter of sentence appears to be just and proper. In that view of the matter, I reduce the substantive jail sentence which has been awarded bythe trial Court under sections 306 of IPC to the period already undergone byenhancing the fine amount to the extent of Rs.7,000/-. On depositing the fine amount within a period of 8 weeks from today his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Failure to deposit the enhanced fine amount the appellant shall undergo further RI for one year. 11. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, this appeal stands partly allowed. .........