Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 118 (MP)

Mukesh v. State Of M. P.

2013-01-23

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9-5-1998 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 144/1996 convicting the appellants under sections 306, 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and directing them to undergo three years of RI along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further three months RI each, under sections 498-A/ 34 of Indian Penal Code directing to undergo two years of RI along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further two months RI each, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Prosecution story, as alleged, is that Sushila Bai was married to accused Mukesh. Sahodara Bai is her mother-in-law. From the wedlock one daughter of seven years and two younger sons were there. It is alleged that after 4-5 years of the marriage accused-Mukesh and Sahodara Bai demanded dowry and discarded her from matrimonial home and subjected cruelty. It is averred that in marriage nothing has been given by the father of the deceased, however, demanded fan, watch, cash and due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demand, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, however, she committed suicide by taking Sulphas tablets. In such circumstances, offence against accused persons was registered under section 306/34 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the charge-sheet has been filed. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial where the charges under sections 306, 306/34, 498-A, 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused persons. Accused persons have abjured their guilt and took a defence that they have not instigated the deceased for committing suicide to the deceased, however, they have been falsely implicated. It is further said that no demand of dowry was made from her. 4. Learned trial Court relying upon the statement of Kailash Chand Patidar (PW-2), Champaram (PW-3), Amritlal (PW-4), Rambai (PW-8) and Suresh Singh (PW-9), recorded a finding that the prosecution has established the charge of abetment to commit suicide and regarding cruelty, harassing in lieu of demand of dowry and directed to undergo sentence as mentioned hereinabove. 5. 4. Learned trial Court relying upon the statement of Kailash Chand Patidar (PW-2), Champaram (PW-3), Amritlal (PW-4), Rambai (PW-8) and Suresh Singh (PW-9), recorded a finding that the prosecution has established the charge of abetment to commit suicide and regarding cruelty, harassing in lieu of demand of dowry and directed to undergo sentence as mentioned hereinabove. 5. Shri T. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants, referring the statement of Kailash Chand Patidar (PW-2) who had resided with accused-Mukesh since last one year and in para-11 of his statement it is admitted by him that during that period no demand of dowry was made by the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further contended that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of Amritlal (PW-4) brother, it is categorically admitted that when his sister came to her house, demand of dowry was never complained by deceased. In that view of the matter, it is apparent that it is not a case of demand of dowry but after having some dispute in the family the said story has been projected to make out a case of abetment to commit suicide. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das vs. Kartar Singh and others, 2007 AIR SCW 3107, having some dispute or discords in the matrimonial house and the wife is often harassed by husband and in-laws would not be enough to attract the ingredients of section 306 of Indian Penal Code. In the said judgment various judgments of the Apex Court has been considered and the accused persons have been acquitted. It is submitted that looking to the evidence brought on record, it is clear that there may be some dispute in the family regarding again and again going to matrimonial house and not performing the work but such dispute do not constitute abetment to commit suicide. It is further said that no offence of instigation of commission of suicide has been proved by the prosecution, however, in absence thereto finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court is unsustainable in law, therefore, allowing this appeal, appellants may be acquitted from the charges. 6. Shri Manish Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, has argued in support of the finding so recorded by the trial Court and has contended that deceased was died on 19-1-1996 due to abetment. 6. Shri Manish Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, has argued in support of the finding so recorded by the trial Court and has contended that deceased was died on 19-1-1996 due to abetment. There was some dispute from 14-1-1996 to which meeting was conducted on 18-1-1996. However, in such circumstances, sufficient material for instigation to commit suicide on account of those disputes are available on record. In such circumstances, trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, however, the appeal filed by them may be dismissed maintaining the judgment of the trial Court. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the contents of section 306 of Indian Penal Code, it is apparent that if any person commit suicide on abetment of commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment as specified therein. Abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Bare reading thereof, it appears that a person whoever abets the doing of a thing to instigate any person to do that thing or he himself engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, for doing that thing or otherwise intentionally aids by any act, the doing of that thing. In the context, the meaning of word "that thing" is in context of abetment and in the context of provisions of section 306 of Indian Penal Code relates to commission of suicide by person who has died and the abettor is required to instigate or act in order of committing suicide. In the said context, the evidence brought by the prosecution in the present case is required to be examined. 8. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that marriage of deceased-Sushilabai was solemnized with accused-Mukesh about ten years back. It is also not in dispute that from the said wedlock one daughter aged 7 years and two younger sons are born. It is also not in dispute that Kailashchand Patidar (PW-2) cousin of the deceased was residing with the deceased and accused-Mukesh at Kayda. It is also not in dispute that deceased went to Village Chhitarkhedi on 14-1-1996 and came back on 17-1-1996 along with his uncle namely Suresh Singh (PW-9). It is also not in dispute that Kailashchand Patidar (PW-2) cousin of the deceased was residing with the deceased and accused-Mukesh at Kayda. It is also not in dispute that deceased went to Village Chhitarkhedi on 14-1-1996 and came back on 17-1-1996 along with his uncle namely Suresh Singh (PW-9). On coming back Sahodara Bai asked Mukesh why the deceased was being sent again and again to her matrimonial house, thereupon some dispute had taken place which was pacified on the same day. On 18-1-1996 family members of the deceased came to Kayda and the meeting was organized along with various other persons of society and the matter was resolved. Thereafter no evidence causing instigation to commit suicide has been brought on record. If some dispute was in the family, the same has been resolved sitting along with the members of the family and other members of the society, then thereafter some evidence must be brought by the prosecution showing instigation to commit suicide. In the present case no such evidence to establish the charge of abetment to commit suicide is available on record. In that view of the matter, the trial Court committed grave error in recording the finding that the charge under section 306, 306/34 has been established by the prosecution. In this respect judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das (supra) may be profitably referred and in the said judgment the Apex Court has observed in paras 14, 15 and 16 as under : "14. In the same decision it was observed following the decision in State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994(1) SCC 73 that : "the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty ." 15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract section 306, Indian Penal Code read with section 107. 16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract section 306 read with section 107, Indian Penal Code, if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. We, however make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of dowry soon before her death then section 304-B, Indian Penal Code may be attracted, whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. Vide Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and ors., 2000(5) SCC 207 , Satvir Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2001(8) SCC 633 , Smt. Shanti and anr. vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1251." 9. Now to look into the charge with respect to section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is concerned, looking to the evidence of Kailashchand Patidar (PW-2), it is clear that during the period of one year of his residence with accused persons, he has never heard the demand of dowry from the accused or any in-laws of the deceased. As per the statement Amritlal, it is clear that demand of dowry has not been conveyed by deceased to him. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of establishing charge under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as recorded by the trial Court, do not subsist on law though in the statement of father and mother some allegations are there but it is not co-related with the statement other witnesses as discussed hereinabove. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of establishing charge under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as recorded by the trial Court, do not subsist on law though in the statement of father and mother some allegations are there but it is not co-related with the statement other witnesses as discussed hereinabove. In view of forgoing, in the considered opinion of this Court, charge under sections 306, 306/34, 498-A, 498-A/34 of Penal Code has not been brought at home by the prosecution bringing the cogent evidence on record, therefore, the conviction and sentence so directed by the trial Court is unsustainable, hence set aside. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted from all the charges. In consequent to the aforesaid, the bail bonds of the appellants are hereby discharged.