Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1420 (MP)

Mango Bai v. State of M. P.

2014-11-05

AJIT SINGH, RAJENDRA MAHAJAN

body2014
ORDER Mahajan, J. -- 1. This petition under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by appellant Smt. Mango Bai, who is mother of deceased Preeti, feeling aggrieved by impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.1.2014 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.238/2012, State of M.P. through Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur v. Rajesh and three others, whereby the learned Judge acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under section 498A, 304B in alternate 306 and 302 of the IPC and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. At the outset, it may be worthwhile to mention that learned Panel Lawyer Shri P. Jain has stated at the Bar that the State has not filed appeal against the impugned judgment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Preeti was married to respondent No.2 Rajesh on 26.5.2011. She died on 8.4.2012 at National Hospital, Jabalpur in the course of treatment. According to FSL report Ex.P/16, cause of her death was the consumption of insecticide containing poisonous Oregano Phosphorus substance. As such Preeti died under abnormal circumstances within about 10 months from the date of her marriage. Respondents No.3 to 5 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) of deceased Preeti respectively. It is alleged by prosecution that respondents No.2 to 5 used to torture, humiliate, victimize and behave cruelly to Preeti in order to force her to bring a motor bike and Rs.50,000/- cash in dowry from her relatives. 4. Vide impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 of the aforesaid charges by giving following findings :- 1. Appellant Smt. Mango Bai’s husband died about 15 to 17 years before the marriage of Preeti with Rajesh. Appellant Smt. Mango Bai (PW5) and her son Raju (PW6) earned their livelihood by doing manual work. They do not possess any ancestral properties. They are financially helped by appellant Smt. Mango Bai’s brother Komal Singh (PW7). With the financial help of relatives, appellant Smt. Mango Bai married off Preeti with respondent Rajesh. Respondents No.2 to 5 were in the know of this fact prior to marriage of Preeti with respondent Rajesh. Despite that respondent Rajesh married to Preeti. They are financially helped by appellant Smt. Mango Bai’s brother Komal Singh (PW7). With the financial help of relatives, appellant Smt. Mango Bai married off Preeti with respondent Rajesh. Respondents No.2 to 5 were in the know of this fact prior to marriage of Preeti with respondent Rajesh. Despite that respondent Rajesh married to Preeti. Under the circumstances the evidence of Smt. Mango Bai (PW5), Raju (PW6) and Komal Singh (PW7) are not reliable with regard to demand of dowry by the respondents No.2 to 5. 2. Komal Singh (PW7) gave written complaint Ex. P/11 on 20.4.2012 to the SDO(P), Narsinghpur, whereas Preeti had died on 8.4.2012. He in his evidence has not offered any satisfactory answer as to why he had not made the report of incident to the police immediately after the death of Preeti under suspicious condition. The delay of 12 days in making the complaint Ex.P/11 is very the material. If Preeti had been subjected to harassment and cruelty during her marital life, the complainant party would have made a complaint to the police just after her death. Therefore, the false implication of respondents No.2 to 5 by the complainant party cannot be ruled out. 3. Appellant Smt. Mango Bai (PW5) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that prior to the death of Preeti, she had come to her house four times. Every time respondent Rajesh took her from her house on his motor bike. If Preeti had been tortured and harassed by respondents No.2 to 5 demanding dowry, she would have never gone with respondent Rajesh and instead preferred to stay with her mother appellant Smt. Mango Bai. Going of Preeti with respondent Rajesh shows that they had peaceful and happy marital life. 4. Raju (PW6) in para 9 of his deposition has admitted that on 8.4.2012, respondent Rajesh had informed him on cell phone that Preeti has been seriously ill and is admitted in National Hospital, Jabalpur. This admission on the part of Raju belies the evidence of appellant Smt. Mango Bai (PW5), Komal Singh (PW7) and Raju himself that on 8.4.2012, the day of death of Preeti, respondent Rajesh asked Raju on a cell phone to give him a motor cycle and Rs.50,000/- cash in dowry otherwise, he would divorce Preeti. 5. Dr. R.P. Pyasi, (PW1) has performed autopsy on the dead body of Preeti. 5. Dr. R.P. Pyasi, (PW1) has performed autopsy on the dead body of Preeti. He has admitted in evidence that he has not found any external injury on the person of Preeti. This fact proves that Preeti was not subjected to physical violence soon before her death. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that the death of Preeti may be due to food poisoning. 6. Appellant Smt. Mango Bai (PW5), Raju (PW6) and Komal Singh (PW7) have admitted in their evidence that respondent Rajesh has been maintaining a motor cycle before his marriage with Preeti. Therefore, demand of motor cycle in dowry by respondents No.2 to 5 is not worthy of reliance. 7. Defence witness Dr. Rajani Singh (DW1), a lady doctor, has admitted in her evidence that she had treated Preeti as she suffered from pain in stomach. Her evidence is worthy of credence. Dr. H.C. Dubey, (DW3) has stated in his evidence that he conducted sonography test upon Preeti on 2.4.2012 and found that she was carrying near about four months old pregnancy. Basorilal (DW2) who is a neighbour of respondents No.2 to 5, has stated in his evidence that Preeti used to suffer from sever pain in her stomach. Once he and respondent Rajesh took Preeti for treatment to Gotegaon when she suffered stomach pain. Evidence of the above defence witnesses cannot be disbelieved. This shows that the respondents No.2 to 5 looked after Preeti very well. 8. The background of respondents No.2 to 5 is rural and respondent Rajesh and respondent Kok Singh, are agriculturist by profession. In view of this fact, respondents No.2 to 5 in their house kept insecticide for its use in agriculture. Preeti may have consumed insecticide in order to get rid of her stomach-pain. Therefore, the possibility of her committing suicide cannot be ruled out. 5. On perusal of the prosecution evidence on record, it is found that the prosecution case is entirely based upon the oral evidence of appellant Smt. Mango Bai PW5, Raju PW6 and Komal Singh PW7. After scrutinizing their evidence , we find that full reliance cannot be placed. We also find that learned trial Judge has arrived at the aforesaid findings after proper appreciation of evidence on record. Upon aforesaid findings, the impugned judgment of acquittal is justifiable. After scrutinizing their evidence , we find that full reliance cannot be placed. We also find that learned trial Judge has arrived at the aforesaid findings after proper appreciation of evidence on record. Upon aforesaid findings, the impugned judgment of acquittal is justifiable. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment in view of the legal principle laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 ]. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is summarily dismissed at the stage of admission. ..................