Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1000 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Mahesh Dhobi

2013-08-23

M.C.Garg, Shantanu Kemkar

body2013
ORDER Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of an application filed by the State of MP under section 378(3) of CrPC whereby, they are seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment delivered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 121/2010 dated 7.2.2013 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents for having committed offence under sections 302, 304B and 498A/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stating, it is the case of the prosecution that Rekhabai, the deceased was married with the respondent Mahesh about 10 to 12 years ago. They also have one son and one daughter from the aforesaid marriage. Three years ago, Mahesh started residing at Raghunathpura, in Dhar. He took out the loan in the name of his wife from M/s. Spandana Sfooty Financial Ltd. Since the payment of the aforesaid loan was not done regularly, he left Rekhabai at her village and gone to village Gunawad. He had taken Rekhabai to Dhar on 8.1.2010, where he treated Rekhabai with cruelty. He also started forcing Rekhabai to bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of her portion from the paternal land, which of her mother. On account of refusing to do so, respondents Mahesh, Manoj, Madanlal and Bhagubai burnt her by powering kerosene on her person on 8.1.2010. She was taken to the hospital where her dying declaration was also recorded on 8.1.2010 vide Ex.D-2. 3. In the said dying declaration, she stated that she was burn while preparing meal on stove. Later on, she was taken to the Lifeline Hospital, where she again made a dying declaration before the Tehsildar Shri Alok Paare PW-10. This time vide her statement recorded as Ex.P-20, she blamed her mother in law, father in law, brother in law Manoj and her husband having powered kerosene on her person. She blamed all of them alongwith others for this incident. An application was given by the father of Rekhabai PW 4 vide Ex. P-4 on 30.1.2010 at P.S. Sadalpur. 4. Vide this application based upon Ex. P-20, a case was registered against respondents on 3.2.2010 under sections 498A and 307/34 of IPC. Later on Rekhabai succumbed to the injuries. Her dead body sent for postmortem and respondent were arrested. Challan was filed against them. On 23.3.2010 for the alleging offence under section 302, 304B and 498A read with section 34. Vide this application based upon Ex. P-20, a case was registered against respondents on 3.2.2010 under sections 498A and 307/34 of IPC. Later on Rekhabai succumbed to the injuries. Her dead body sent for postmortem and respondent were arrested. Challan was filed against them. On 23.3.2010 for the alleging offence under section 302, 304B and 498A read with section 34. However, the Trial Court after recorded evidence acquitted the respondents, hence this application. 5. It is the submission made on behalf of the applicant/ State that the statement made in Ex. P-20 clearly implicates all the respondents, therefore, the Trial Court has committed a wrong in not having accepted the aforesaid documents in consideration. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. The reasons for not accepting Ex. P-20 clearly implicates all the respondents, therefore, the Trial Court has committed a wrong in not having accepted the aforesaid documents in consideration. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. The reasons for not accepting Ex. P-20 as genuine document, finds mentioned in paragraphs 46 to 49 of the judgment, the same is reproduced here as under:- 46& e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 eas ;g mYys[k gS fd tsB fnus’k Hkh cgqr ijs’kku djrk Fkk] ysfdu fnus’k ds laca/k eas fdlh Hkh lk{kh us dqN Hkh ugha dgk gSaA vr% e`R;qdkfyd dFku eas fy[ks bl rF; dh lEiqf”V vU; lk{; ls ugha gksrh gS fd vfHk;qDr fnus’k js[kkckbZ dks ijs’kku djrk FkkA 47& e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 ds vuqlkj js[kkckbZ ds nsoj fnus’k us ckYVh Hkj ikuh js[kkckbZ ij MkykA lk{kh dSyk’k ,oa eatqckbZ ds dFkuksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 8-1-2010 dks /kkj vLirky ,oa bUnkSj ds vLirky eas js[kkckbZ us vius firk dSyk’k ,oa ekW eatqckbZ dks ?kVuk ds ckjs eas crk;k Fkk] ysfdu dSyk’k ,oa eatq vius&vius dFkuksa eas ;g ugha dgrs gSa fd nsoj us ckYVh Hkj ikuh MkykA vr% e`R;qdkfyd dFku eas fy[ks bl rF; dh lEiqf”V vU; lk{; ls ugha gksrh gS fd nsoj eukst us ckYVh Hkj ikuh MkykA 48& e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 eas ;g mYys[k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ;g dgrs Fks fd rsjh eEeh dks ukukth dh tehu eas fgLlk fey jgk gS] iSls ysdj vkA lk{kh dSyk’k ,oa eatqckbZ ds dFkuksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 8-1-2010 dks js[kkckbZ us ?kVuk ds ckjs eas bu nksukas dks crk;k Fkk] ysfdu bu nksukas us gh vius dFkuksa eas ;g ugha dgk gS fd js[kkckbZ us budks crk;k Fkk fd vfHk;qDrx.k dgrs Fks fd rsjh eEeh dks ukukth dh tehu eas fgLlk feyk gS] iSls ysdj vk A vr% e`R;qdkfyd dFku eas dgs x;s mDr dFku dh lEiqf”V Hkh vU; lk{; ls ugha gksrh gSA 49& e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 ij ;g Vhi vafdr gS fd gkFk dh vaxqfy;ksa o vaxqBk iw.kZr% tys gksus ds dkj.k vaxqBk@gLrk{kj ugha djok;s x;s] tcfd ?kVuk okys fnu] vFkkZr~ fnukad 8-1-2010 dks uk;c rglhynkj Jherh Hkxorh dkx us Án’kZ Mh&2 dk tks eqR;qdkfyd dFku fy;k] ml ij e`frdk js[kkckbZ dk vaxq”B fpg~u yxok;k x;k] bl izdkj ls tc fnukad 8-1-2010 dks js[kkckbZ dk vaxqBk lgh gkyr eas Fkk] rks ckn eas dc vkSj dSls ty x;k] bl ckr dk dksbZ Li”Vhdj.k vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ugha gS] vr% ;g ifjfLFkfr e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 dh lR;rk ds laca/k eas lansg mRiUu djrh gS A 8. Other reasons have also been given by the learned trial Court for having not accepted the version of the prosecution with respect to the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex. D-2. Other reasons have also been given by the learned trial Court for having not accepted the version of the prosecution with respect to the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex. D-2. Those reasons are specified in paragraphs 50, 51 and 52, which are reproduced here as under:- 50& lk{kh dSyk’k us izfrijh{k.k ds in Øekad&17 eas bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd js[kk dks bUnkSj eas HkrhZ djkus ds ,d ekg 8 fnu ckn mldh e`R;q gqbZ] rc rd js[kk ds ikl ;g Lo;a vkSj mldh ?kj okyh jgrs Fks A lk{kh eatqckbZ ¼v-lk-& 5½ us Hkh izfrijh{k.k ds in Øekad&7 eas bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bldh yM+dh bUnkSj nok[kkus eas HkrhZ Fkh] rc ;g vkSj bldk ifr nok[kkus eas jgrs Fks rFkk bldh yM+dh bUnkSj vLirky eas ,d ekg 4 fnu HkrhZ jgh Fkh A bl izdkj ls lk{kh dSyk’k ,oa eatqckbZ ds dFkuksa eas Li”V gksrk gSaA fd ,d ekg ls vf/kd le; rd budh yM+dh bUnkSj vLirky eas HkrhZ jgha] rc rd ;s nksuksa bUnkSj eas gh nok[kkus eas jgsA vr% bu nksuksa dk e`R;q fnukad rd ,d ekg ls vf/kd vof/k rd js[kkckbZ ds lkFk jgus ls js[kkckbZ dks fy[kkus&i<+kus ;k fl[kk;s tkus dh Ácy laHkkouk curh gSA vr% bl ckr dh laHkkouk curh gS fd js[kkckbZ us buds ekrk&firk }kjk fl[kk;s&i<+k;s tkus ij Án’kZ ih&20 dk ,slk e`R;qdkfyd dFku fn;k] tks js[kkckbZ ds Án’kZ Mh&2 ds e`R;qdkfyd dFku ls iw.kZr% fHkUu gS A 51& pwWfd Án’kZ Mh&2 ds e`R;qdkfyd dFku eas js[kkckbZ us fdlh Hkh vfHk;qDr ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh vkjksi ugha yxk;k] cfYd [kkuk cukrs le; LVkso eas feV~Vh dk rsy Mkyus ls LVkso HkHkd tkus ls vkx yxuk crk;k] tcfd Án’kZ ih&20 ds e`R;qdkfyd dFku eas vfHk;qDrx.k dks ?kVuk ds fy;s ftEesnkj gksuk crk;k A vr% ,slh fLFkfr eas i’pkr~orhZ e`R;qdkfyd dFku fyfic) djus okys vf/kdkjh] vFkkZr~ rglhnkj vkyksd ikjs dks ;g pkfg;s Fkk fd og bl laca/k eas js[kkckbZ ls iz’u djrk fd mlus iwoZ dk fHkUu dFku fdl dkj.k vkSj fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa eas fn;k] fdUrq bl laca/k eas js[kkckbZ ls dqN Hkh ugha iwNk x;k A vr% ;g ifjfLFkfr Hkh e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZZ ih&20 dh lR;rk dks lansgkLin cukrh gSA 52& bl izdkj ls mijksDr dkj.kksa ij fopkj djus ij ;gh fu”d”kZ fudyrk gS fd e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 dk leFkZu vU; lk{; ls ugha gksrk gSA vr% vU; lk{; ls leFkZu ugha gksus ls rFkk vU; mijksDr dkj.kksa ij fopkj djus ij ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd Án’kZZ ih&20 dk e`R;qdkfyd dFku e`frdk js[kkckbZ us LosPN;k ls rFkk fcuk fdlh ncko ds fn;k A vr% e`R;qdkfyd dFku Án’kZ ih&20 fo’oluh; gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS rFkk bl e`R;qdkfyd dFku ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) dksbZ foijhr fu”d”kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk gSA 9. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment, facts and evidence as are available on record, which also reflects to various contradictions in the statement of PW 4 Kailash and PW 5 Manjubai, father and mother of the deceased, the trial Court held that their statements were not reliable. It is a matter of record that vide Ex. D-2, the deceased has taken a stand that she was burn while preparing meal over stove. It is a matter of record that vide Ex. D-2, the deceased has taken a stand that she was burn while preparing meal over stove. The relevant discussion is in paragraph 56, which is reproduced here as under:- 56& bl dFku ls lk{kh dSyk’k ,ao eatqckbZ ds dFkuksa ds vuqlkj eatqckbZ dks /kkj vLirky eas js[kkckbZ us crk;k fd vkjksihx.k us feV~Vh dk rsy Mkydj tyk fn;k gS] tcfd dSyk’k ds dFku ds vuqlkj bldks bankSj vLirky esa js[kkckbZ us crk;k fd vkjksihx.k us tyk fn;k gS A bl izdkj ls nksukas ds dFkuksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 8-1-2010 dks js[kkckbZ us nksuksa dks ?kVuk ds ckjs eas crk fn;k Fkk A eatqckbZ ds dFku ds vuqlkj dbZ ckj iqfyl vLirky eas vk;h rFkk blds c;ku fy;s ,oa 9 rkjh[k dks Hkh c;ku fy;s FksA bl izdkj ls tc fnukad 8-1-2010 dks dSyk’k ,oa eatq dks ?kVuk ds ckjs eas tkudkjh gks x;h Fkh rFkk 9 rkjh[k dks Hkh iqfyl dks eatq us crk fn;k Fkk rFkk dbZ ckj iqfyl eatqckbZ ls fey pqdh Fkh] rks ,slh fLFkfr eas dSyk’k us ;k eatqckbZ us iqfyl Fkkus eas 22 fnu rd fjiksVZ D;ksa ugha dh rFkk nksuksa 22 fnu rd D;ksa pqi cSBs jgs] bl ckr dk dksbZ leqfpr Li”Vhdj.k ugha gS] tcfd 22 fnu ckn Án’kZZ ih&4 dk vkosnu bUnkSj U;k;ky; eas fdlh vf/koDrk ls iqfyl ds dgus ij VkbZi djok;k x;k rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Án’kZ ih&11 Hkh fnukad 3-2-2010 dks Án’kZZ ih&4 ds vkosnu ,oa Án’kZZ ih&20 ds e`R;qdkfyd dFku ds vk/kkj ij fy[kh x;hA vr% mDr leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djus ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd okLro eas fnukad 8-1-2010 dks /kkj vLirky eas js[kkckbZ us ?kVuk ds ckjs eas crk;k ,oa fnukad 8-1-2010 dks bUnkSj vLirky eas dSyk’k dks ?kVuk ds ckjs eas crk;kA vr& lk{kh dSyk’k ,oa eatw ds ;g dFku fo’oluh; ugha gS fd fnukad 8-1-2010 dks e`frdk js[kkckbZ us ;g crk;k fd vfHk;qDrx.k us feV~Vh dk rsy Mkydj mlds mij vkx yxk nhA vr% e`frdk js[kkckbZ }kjk fnukad 8-1-2010 dks vius firk dSyk’k ,oa ekaW eatqckbZ dks ?kVuk ds ckjs eas crkus dk rF; fo’oluh; ugha gSA 10. From the aforesaid averments, we find that the judgment delivered by the trial Court in having acquitted the respondents is fully supported with cogent reasons and does not call for any interference. From the aforesaid averments, we find that the judgment delivered by the trial Court in having acquitted the respondents is fully supported with cogent reasons and does not call for any interference. It is also well settled that, when two view are possible, the view, which supports the accused persons, must prevail. Consequently, we dismiss the application. 11. Accordingly, the application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.