Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1567 (MP)

Motilal Kushwaha v. State of M. P.

2014-12-02

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa in S.T. No.288/2009, whereby the appellants have been convicted of offence under sections 304B, 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and each of them sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- respectively. Default sentence was also prescribed. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 18.5.2009, at about 5:20 p.m., an intimation was given to the Police Station Mauganj, District Rewa that Suryakali, wife of Criminal Appeal No.1487 of 2010 the appellant Santosh Kushwaha was found burnt in her room, within the house of the appellants, situated at village Mudariya, Police Station Mauganj, District Rewa. She was taken to Mauganj Government Hospital by a tractor-trolley but, doctor declared her to be dead. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Dr.Arvind Mishra (PW1) examined her body on 19.5.2009 and gave his report, Ex.P-1. He found that the deceased was burnt by 100%. On investigation, it was found that she died within 3-4 years of her marriage and she was being tortured for demand of dowry etc. and therefore, she had committed suicide. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Mauganj, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Rewa and ultimately, it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj. 3. The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that marriage of the deceased took place with the appellant Santosh 7 years prior to the incident. They had been falsely implicated by the parents and relatives of the deceased. The deceased was kept with comfort and no dowry was demanded from her. In defence, Dadan Prasad Kushwaha (DW1) and Triyugi Narayan (DW2) were examined as defence witnesses. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Initially, the appellants took a plea that marriage of the deceased and Santosh took place in the year 2002. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Initially, the appellants took a plea that marriage of the deceased and Santosh took place in the year 2002. However, various witnesses like Shivbhajan (PW7), father of the deceased, Smt.Tershi (PW8), mother of the deceased, Raghuveer Kushwaha (PW9), brother of the deceased have stated that marriage of the deceased and Santosh took place in the year 2005. A merg intimation, Ex.P-2 was lodged by one Motilal, in which he had informed that marriage of the deceased and the appellant Santosh took place 3 years back. The appellants have examined the defence witnesses Dadan Prasad Kushwaha (DW1) and Triyugi Narayan (DW2) but, they did not say anything about the date or year of marriage and, therefore, at this stage, the appellants could not prove that the deceased died after 7 years of her marriage. On the contrary, it appears that she died after 4 years of her marriage i.e. within 7 years of her marriage. 7. Dr.Arvind Mishra (DW1) has examined the dead body of the deceased Suryakali and gave his report, Ex.P-1. According to him, the deceased was found burnt 100% and she died due to burn injuries and Neurogenic shock caused due to injuries. He specifically used a term “Hypovolumic and Neurogenic shock” for the cause of death of the deceased. However, Dr. Arvind Mishra has stated that there was no smell of kerosene found on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if the deceased would have committed suicide then, there must be some kerosene found on her body and doctor could have found the smell of kerosene and, therefore, it is not a case of suicide. Learned counsel for the appellants may be right up to that extent but, at present, the charges of offence under section 304B of IPC were framed against the appellants and they were convicted of that offence. For offence under section 304B of IPC, it is not the question as to whether the death of the deceased was suicidal, homicidal or accidental. For offence under section 304B of IPC, death of the deceased should not be a natural death. For offence under section 304B of IPC, it is not the question as to whether the death of the deceased was suicidal, homicidal or accidental. For offence under section 304B of IPC, death of the deceased should not be a natural death. It would be apparent from the statement of Doctor Arvind Mishra (PW1) that death of the deceased was not natural. 8. There are two sets of allegations made by the parents and relatives of the deceased against the appellants. Firstly that from the very beginning, the deceased was complaining about harassment done by the appellants due to dowry demand etc. and secondly that when marriage of Rajkali, cousin of the deceased took place and uncle of the deceased gave so many articles in marriage to Rajkali. Thereafter, the appellants started demanding similar dowry from the deceased. The appellants have taken a defence that in their caste women are expected to do the job of their house as well as to work at the fields and the deceased was reluctant to go to work in the fields and therefore, sometimes quarrel took place between the appellant Santosh and the deceased. The defence witness Dadan Prasad Kushwaha (DW1) and Triyugi Narayan (DW2) have stated that the deceased was not interested to do work in the fields and, therefore, she declined going to the fields, whereas in their community, men as well as women are working in the fields simultaneously. 9. Before considering the allegations and counter allegations, a peculiar position of the present case is to be noted as to how it was registered. Shivbhajan (PW7) has accepted that he was working with SDM, Mauganj. In para 19 he has accepted that he was informed about the death of his daughter when he was working in the bungalow of SDM, Mauganj. He immediately made a request to SDM Shri Dhurvey, who gave an instruction to SDO(P) Shri Chourasiya to take immediate action against the appellants and thereafter, the case was immediately registered and the appellants were arrested. He has further accepted in para 27of his evidence that he went to meet Shri Narayan Singh Kushwaha, a Minister in the Home Ministry of the State Government and the minister recommended to take strict action in the case. He has also accepted that he has engaged a counsel in the case who appeared for him throughout the trial. 10. He has further accepted in para 27of his evidence that he went to meet Shri Narayan Singh Kushwaha, a Minister in the Home Ministry of the State Government and the minister recommended to take strict action in the case. He has also accepted that he has engaged a counsel in the case who appeared for him throughout the trial. 10. If the first portion of allegations made by Shivbhajan (PW7), Smt.Tershi (PW8) and Raghuveer Kushwaha (PW9) are examined then, they have stated that soon after the marriage of the deceased, the appellants have started demanding of a motorcycle and the deceased was being harassed for such demand. However, Brijbhan (PW4), who appeared as a prosecution witness has accepted in para 7 that the house of the appellants is hardly 1 km away from the house of Shivbhajan, Smt.Tershi and Raghuveer Kushwaha. According to the witnesses Shivbhajan, Smt.Tershi and Raghuveer, 2 days prior to the death of the deceased, Raghuveer went to the house of the appellants to drop the deceased Suryakali on a bicycle after the marriage ceremony of Rajkali. Hence, it is established by the evidence of these witnesses that the appellants as well as Shivbhajan etc. were residing in the same village and their houses were not so far away. 11. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that in last 4 years of her married life, if she was being tortured then, she would have immediately informed her parents about such incidents and Shivbhajan and Raghuveer would have taken steps to resolve the problem thereby. They could call a Panchayat of the community or they would have held the deceased Suryakali in their house for sometime until the problem was resolved or the FIR to the police could be filed but, Shivbhajan, Smt.Tershi and Raghuveer have accepted that no such steps were taken by Shivbhajan or Raghuveer in those 4-5 years when the deceased Suryakali was alive. No steps were taken in those 4-5 years by the deceased Suryakali herself. Shivbhajan in para 11 has accepted that he was a regular visitor to the house of the appellants and he never saw the deceased to be injured due to any assault caused by the appellants. He has accepted that the appellants never demanded for a motorcycle, cooler and TV at the time of marriage. Shivbhajan in para 11 has accepted that he was a regular visitor to the house of the appellants and he never saw the deceased to be injured due to any assault caused by the appellants. He has accepted that the appellants never demanded for a motorcycle, cooler and TV at the time of marriage. He has accepted in para 12 that for the first time, the appellants have demanded about dowry when the appellants Santosh came to his house after attending the marriage of Rajkali, cousin of the deceased Suryakali. He has also accepted in para 13 that when the deceased Suryakali came to the house to attend the marriage of Rajkali, she had talks with family members without any complaint and she went to attend the marriage in a pleasant mood. He has further accepted in para 17 that when Raghuveer went to drop the deceased Suryakali to the house of the appellants then, Suryakali prepared lunch for Raghuveer and thereafter, he was permitted to go to his house. He has also accepted that in life time of Suryakali, no FIR was lodged by him or his daughter relating to dowry demand or harassment. There are some contradictions relating to the fact of dowry demand and harassment between the statements given by Shivbhajan, Smt.Tershi and Raghuveer during the trial and in their case diary statements. Shivbhajan has accepted in para 16 that he told the police officers that the appellants demanded a motorcycle, TV and cooler from the deceased and directed her to bring such things from her father but, no such allegation was found in his case diary statement, Ex.D-1. It was also admitted by the witness Shivbhajan in para 10 that a girl child was born to the deceased Suryakali and after the death of the deceased Suryakali that child was managed by family members of the appellants. 12. It was also admitted by the witness Shivbhajan in para 10 that a girl child was born to the deceased Suryakali and after the death of the deceased Suryakali that child was managed by family members of the appellants. 12. In these circumstances, prima facie, it appears that if there was a continuous demand of motorcycle from the side of the appellants then, certainly the parents and relatives of the deceased would have either fulfilled that demand or they would have taken some steps to resolve the dispute between the parties but, in 4 years of life time of the deceased, there were no steps taken by the parents and relatives of the deceased then, it is possible that there was no demand of motorcycle in the last 4 years and after death of the deceased omnibus allegations were made by the parents and relatives of the deceased against the appellants. 13. Various villagers of the same village were examined from the side of prosecution to prove various memos. Out of them, Brijbhan (PW4) has also accepted that he did not hear any word from anyone that there was a dispute between the appellants and the deceased relating to demand of a motorcycle or any other demand. He has accepted that at the time of marriage, there was no such demand. He has accepted that the appellants have huge agricultural land in their possession and they are well to do persons. Smt.Tershi (PW8), mother of the deceased have initially stated that in last 4 years of marital life of the deceased Suryakali, the appellants were continuously demanding motorcycle, TV and cooler, whereas she did not mention such a demand in her case diary statement, Ex.D-2 for those 4 years. She has accepted in para 6 of her statement that when marriage of Rajkali took place, thereafter the appellants started demanding motorcycle, TV and cooler. However, she has accepted that marriage of Rajkali took place, 3-4 days prior to the death of deceased. She has also accepted that the deceased was in happy mood in the marriage of Rajkali and she did not make any complaint during that stay. However, she has accepted that marriage of Rajkali took place, 3-4 days prior to the death of deceased. She has also accepted that the deceased was in happy mood in the marriage of Rajkali and she did not make any complaint during that stay. Smt.Tershi has stated that she told the police that once her son went to drop Suryakali to the house of the appellants then, the appellants demanded a motorcycle from Raghuveer and also demanded TV and cooler, whereas no such statement is found in her case diary statement, Ex.D-2. 14. Raghuveer (PW9) has stated that there was a continuous demand of motorcycle from the side of the appellants. However, he did not say anything that what steps he had taken to resolve the dispute. He has accepted that after marriage of the deceased Suryakali, she was regularly visiting to his house and she was never stopped by the appellants to go to her father’s house or she was never stopped by this witness to resolve the problem of the deceased relating to dowry demand. In para 8 of his statement, he has accepted that relations of the appellant Santosh and deceased Suryakali were good. Initially in the case diary statement, Raghuveer has stated that there was a demand of only motorcycle for 4 years and thereafter, in cross-examination, he spread his version that there was a demand of motorcycle, cooler, TV and a sum of Rs.20,000/-, whereas Shivbhajan and Smt.Tershi have not said about the demand of Rs.20,000/-. 15. After examining the evidence given by these 3 witnesses, it appears that after death of the deceased, a case of dowry demand is prepared by the police because SDM, Mauganj has directed to register the case and a case was created with the help of an Advocate, who was regularly attending the trial from the very beginning on behalf of the parents of deceased Suryakali. It is admitted by Shivbhajan and others that in 4 years of the marital life of the deceased, there was no demand of any dowry except a motorcycle but, if there would have been a continuous demand of motorcycle then, the deceased would have refused to come back to her house. It is admitted by Shivbhajan and others that in 4 years of the marital life of the deceased, there was no demand of any dowry except a motorcycle but, if there would have been a continuous demand of motorcycle then, the deceased would have refused to come back to her house. If she was being harassed for that demand then some talk would have taken place between the appellants and the parents of the deceased or Raghuveer, brother of the deceased to resolve the dispute. If such dispute was there to be resolved then, the parents of the deceased would have referred the matter to their community Panchayat but, all the villagers who came either as prosecution witness or defence witness have stated that they never heard about such a dowry demand from the side of the appellants in those 4 years. Witness Shivbhajan, Smt.Tershi and Raghuveer Kushwaha are close relatives of the deceased and they were annoyed due to her death. Hence, they may be considered as interested witnesses, whereas not a single independent witness has supported the allegation of dowry demand of a motorcycle for those 4 years. Under such circumstances, looking to the conduct of the deceased and these witnesses during those 4 years, it appears that there was no demand of providing a motorcycle to the appellant Santosh and these witnesses are stating a falsehood. 16. The second portion of the allegation as told by these witnesses that when brother of Shivbhajan gave motorcycle, cooler and TV to his daughter Rajkali in her marriage, thereafter the appellants started demanding such things from the deceased Suryakali. However, it is pertinent to note that one day prior to the incident, Raghuveer went to the house of the appellants to drop Suryakali on a bicycle. Suryakali prepared lunch and provided him lunch according to the customs and thereafter, Raghuveer went back to his house. Thereafter, Raghuveer did not meet the deceased Suryakali, prior to the incident. However, it is pertinent to note that one day prior to the incident, Raghuveer went to the house of the appellants to drop Suryakali on a bicycle. Suryakali prepared lunch and provided him lunch according to the customs and thereafter, Raghuveer went back to his house. Thereafter, Raghuveer did not meet the deceased Suryakali, prior to the incident. When Suryakali went to the house of the appellant and if any dispute took place between the appellant and the deceased then, it was never communicated to the parents of the deceased or brother of the deceased because after leaving Suryakali to the house of the appellants within next 2 days, neither Suryakali went to the house of her parents, nor anyone from the house of parents went to meet her and therefore, there was no possibility of demand of TV, cooler or motorcycle in comparison with the marriage of Rajkali, cousin of the deceased Suryakali. If the appellants would have tortured the deceased for demand of such things then, she had an opportunity to rush to the house of her parents and to inform them about her problem. It appears that no such problem was caused to the deceased in last 2 days before her death. It appears that the parents and brother of the deceased are telling about the harassment for dowry demand by mere suspicion and imagination against the appellants for last 2 days of the life of the deceased Suryakali. When the appellants have not demanded any dowry in last 4 years of marriage of the deceased Suryakali then, it was not possible for them to start demanding such things in those 2 days. They could not harass the deceased Suryakali, so that she would have committed suicide within two days. 17. Under such circumstances, where the deceased Suryakali had an opportunity to immediately rush to her parents house to settle the dispute but, she did not visit to the house of her parents then, the allegation made by the parents and brother of the deceased against the appellants for those 2 days cannot be accepted. Such allegations are made on the basis of imagination and surmises. 18. The prosecution evidence is silent on the actual cause of death of the deceased. It is not clear as to whether she died due to an accident or she committed suicide. Such allegations are made on the basis of imagination and surmises. 18. The prosecution evidence is silent on the actual cause of death of the deceased. It is not clear as to whether she died due to an accident or she committed suicide. As discussed above it is not proved that there was any dowry demand in 4 years of her marital life. Similarly, there was no possibility of enhanced dowry demand in last 2 days of her life. The parents of the deceased were residing in the same village and locality. No FIR was lodged by the parents of the deceased Suryakali or Suryakali in her life time. No community Panchayat was called for resolution of the dispute. Under such circumstances, it appears that Shivbhajan took an advantage of his job as he was working in the bungalow of SDM, Mauganj, therefore, he could get the case of dowry demand registered and prosecuted the appellants in the matter otherwise, there was no cognate evidence from the side of parents and relatives relating to dowry demand or consequential harassment. 19. As discussed above, that the parents and brother of the deceased could not prove that the deceased was harassed in last 4 years of her married life for dowry demand etc. Shivbhajan, Smt.Tershi and Raghuveer have accepted that when the deceased came to their house to attend the marriage ceremony of her cousin then, she was happy and she did not make any complaint of any sort of harassment. It is also discussed that in last 2-3 days of her life, if any harassment was done to her then, it was not in the knowledge of her parents and brother. She neither came to the house of her parents, nor informed anybody that the appellants demanded equivalent dowry from her as given to her cousin Rajkali or she was consequently harassed. Under such circumstances, presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act cannot be applied in the present case. In this connection, judgment passed by apex Court in case of Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2011)12 SCC 408 ], may be perused, in which it is held that if all the ingredients of section 304B of IPC are not proved independently then, presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. In this connection, judgment passed by apex Court in case of Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2011)12 SCC 408 ], may be perused, in which it is held that if all the ingredients of section 304B of IPC are not proved independently then, presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. It was further held that all the ingredients including the ingredient “That soon before her death, she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives” is to be established for application of presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act. In the present case, the prosecution could not prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants soon before her death. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is considered without the presumption then, they could not prove beyond doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants, soon before her death relating to dowry demand etc. Under such circumstances, the appellants could not be convicted of offence under section 304B of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court did not frame the charge of offence under section 306 of IPC, whereas a separate charge is required to be framed. Also prosecution could not prove that the deceased had committed suicide and therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted of offence under section 306 of IPC. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the prosecution witnesses could not establish a single incident when the deceased was being harassed by the appellants or dealt her with cruelty for dowry demand or any other reason and therefore, they could not be convicted of offence under section 498A of IPC. Similarly, it was not proved beyond doubt that the appellants demanded any dowry from the deceased or her parents, therefore, the appellants could not be convicted of offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, where the conviction directed against the appellants by the trial Court of offence under sections 304B, 498A of IPC or section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, where the conviction directed against the appellants by the trial Court of offence under sections 304B, 498A of IPC or section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. The conviction as well as the sentence imposed by the trial Court of offence under sections 304B, 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them. 22. The appellants are in jail and therefore, registry is directed to issue release warrant, without any delay, so that the appellants be released forthwith from the jail. 23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance. .............