Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 877 (MP)

Dhaniram v. State of M. P

2012-09-11

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31-1-1996 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 120/93 convicting appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for four years and one year on each count, respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that Usha, the deceased was married to appellant-Dhaniram about 5 years before her death, which took place on 9-7-93. It is said that after marriage appellant and other three accused persons subjected her to cruelty for not meeting the demand of motorcycle and T. V. in dowry. Whenever, she went to her parents' house, she made complaint to her parents, brother and sister about the same. Ultimately, on 9-7-93, she consumed sulphas tablets and died. A merg report (Exh. P-8) was lodged by her brother Kishora at Police Station, Baldevgarh. After inquest, dead body of Usha was sent for post-mortem examination to Community Health Centre, Baldevgarh. Dr. L.L. Chanderiya (P. W. 10) conducted post-mortem examination and submitted his report (Exh. P-l1). 3. A written report (Exh. P-3) was submitted by Kalyan (P.W. 2), the brother of deceased to police, on the basis where of, case Under Sections 498-A, 306, IPC was registered by Police, Baldevgarh. 4. Charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons including the appellant. However, on the basis of prosecution evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC, but finding the evidence insufficient against other three accused persons, acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Trial Judge, committed error in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 306, IPC, as there was no evidence on record to establish that death of deceased was caused in any unnatural manner of was suicidal. Merely because the symptoms of cyanosis were present in the body of deceased, it could not be held that deceased committed suicide in the absence of any reliable evidence. He, however, halfheartedly, submitted that there was no evidence in respect of charge under Section 498-A, IPC. Merely because the symptoms of cyanosis were present in the body of deceased, it could not be held that deceased committed suicide in the absence of any reliable evidence. He, however, halfheartedly, submitted that there was no evidence in respect of charge under Section 498-A, IPC. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that there was enough evidence on record to indicate that deceased committed suicide by swallowing sulphas tablets and conviction of appellant was justified. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully. 7. On perusal of the evidence of Kalyan (P.W. 2), Shanti Bai (P.W. 3), Puranlal (P.W. 6) and Munni Bai (P.W. 9), who respectively are brother, mother, ) father and sister of deceased, it is apparent that though at the time of marriage, no demand was made by the appellant, but after sometime, appellant started demanding motorcycle and T.V. Whenever deceased met them, she told to them about her agony and harassment at the hand of appellant. 8. Puranlal (P.W. 6) categorically stated that appellant made a demand from him of a motorcycle and T.V. in dowry. He told that if these articles were not given to him, he will not let Usha live peacefully/All the witnesses stated that because of this harassment and cruelty, deceased swallowed sulphas tablets and died. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Dr. L.L. Chanderiya (P.W. 10) did not say that the death of deceased was in any manner suspicious. He could not give any opinion about the cause of death of deceased. For giving opinion, he referred viscera recovered from the body of deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory, however, no report from the FSL was produced in the case. 10. No doubt, merg report (Exh. P-8) was got recorded by Kishora, the brother of deceased, but Kishora was not examined in the Court. Sheikh Zahur Khan (P.W. 11), Sub Inspector of Police Station, Baldevgarh proved the said report, but in the absence of person, who gave the information, it could not be deemed to have been proved. 11. Dr. L.L. Chanderiya (P.W. 10) stated that the face and nails of deceased were cynosed. Cornea was hazy and there was bleeding from nose. There was no external injury on the body of deceased. Deceased was pregnant having a fetus of about 7 months duration. 11. Dr. L.L. Chanderiya (P.W. 10) stated that the face and nails of deceased were cynosed. Cornea was hazy and there was bleeding from nose. There was no external injury on the body of deceased. Deceased was pregnant having a fetus of about 7 months duration. He, however, could not give any clear reason for the cause of death. Thus, there was no evidence on record that death of deceased took place because of consumption of sulphas tablets, or it was otherwise than under I normal circumstances. In my opinion, before holding appellant guilty under Section 306, IPC, it was essential for the prosecution to have proved that deceased committed suicide or her death was otherwise than under normal circumstances. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, the conviction of appellant under Section 306, IPC was liable to be set aside Akula Ravinder and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1142 ]. 12. As already discussed, I have found that from the evidence of Puranlal (P.W. 6) and other witnesses, it was established that appellant subjected his wife Usha to cruelty for not meeting the demand of T.V. and motorcycle, therefore, his conviction under Section 498-A, IPC, is justified and deserves to be affirmed. 13. On the question of sentence, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was a young man of about 22-23 years of age. The incident had occurred in the year 1993, since then, about 19 years have elapsed. He has already remained in jail for a period of five months and seven days. In the above circumstances, learned Counsel prayed for leniency in the matter of awarding jail sentence to appellant. I find substance in the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant. 14. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of appellant to the period of sentence already undergone by him though with imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 15. In the result, conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 306, IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. His conviction under Section 498-A, IPC is affirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 15. In the result, conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 306, IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. His conviction under Section 498-A, IPC is affirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). This amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four months in the Trial Court. On his failure to deposit the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 16. Appeal partly allowed.