Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 86 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Hitendra Singh

2014-01-16

M.C.GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2014
ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh under section 378(3) CrPC seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment delivered by the District Judge, Mandsaur in S.T.No.186/2010. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the judgment of acquittal passed in this case by the learned District Judge vide order dated 29th September, 2010 is not sustainable as the order of acquittal is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. 3. In this case, the respondents who are family members of the deceased being husband and other relations were sent for trial to face charges under sections 498A and 304B IPC inasmuch as within seven years, the deceased was found to have sustained burn injuries which led to her death. It was also the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased was treated with cruelty on account of dowry demand and the death had taken place within 7 years of the marriage. 4. The acquittal in this case has taken place based upon a suicide note left by the deceased vide Ex.P-15 which reads as under:- izn’kZ ih 15 ds vkgr ihM+hrk uhrw ds ej.kklUu dFku tks MkDVj ch ds oekZ fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ‘kkldh; fpfdRlky; Hkkuiqjk ftyk eanlkSj }kjk fy;s x;s mldh bHkkjr fuEukuqlkj vfHkys[k ij gS %& Mh Mh dFku D;k uke gS & uhrw ifr fgrsUnzflag jktiqr 25 o”kZ@,Q fuoklh xka-lk-ua- ¼8½ fnukad 12@02@10 dks 11%30&11%45 cts nksigj ds yxHkx esa pk; cuk jgh Fkh LVksOg ij rks esjs yqxM+h dk iYyk mleas ¼LVkso eas½ yx x;k vkSj eSa iwjh ty xbZ ml le; ?kj ij esjs vykok dksbZ ugha Fkk esjs fpYykus ij iM+kslh efgyk 2&3 vkbZ o mUgksaus ikuh Mkyk blds ckn eq>s vLirky ysdj vk x;s esjs ifr [ksr ij x;s gq;s gS ;g c;ku esa iw.kZ gks’k esa ns jgh gS tks lgh gSA 5. The basic issue before the Court was as to whether the aforesaid dying declaration should have been accepted or not. The basic issue before the Court was as to whether the aforesaid dying declaration should have been accepted or not. This issue has been discussed by analysing the evidence which has come on record in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:- 32& vr% mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij MkDVj ch ds oekZ ds dFku vkSj izn’kZ ih 14 dh fiz ,e ,y lh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li”V gS fd vkgr@jksxh 88 izfr’kr ty pqdh Fkh rFkk mlds nksuksa gkFk vij vkeZ vkSj Qksj vkeZ Hkh ty pqds Fks vkgr jksxh dk iksLVekVZe djus okys lk{kh MkDVj lat; tSu ¼v-lk-7½ us vius eq[; ijh{k.k ds iSjk uacj 2 esa ;g dgk gS fd **nksuks gkFk iw.kZr% tys gq;s Fks flok; nkfgus gkFk dh yksoj vxz Hkqtk** vFkkZr vkgr@jksxh dk nkfgus gkFk dh yksoj vxz Hkqtk ugha tyh FkhA MkDVj ch ds oekZ ¼v-lk-9½ us vius dFkuksa esa vkSj izn’kZ ih 15 ds ej.kklu dFku esa ;g Li”V mYys[k fd;k gS fd vkgr jksxh us ej.kklu dFku iw.kZ gks’k esa fn;k gS vkSj ml ij vaxzsth esa vkgr@jksxh ds gLrk{kj gS ftls MkDVj oekZ us izekf.kr fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izn’kZ ih 15 ds ekj.kklu dFku ij vfo’olkl ,oa lansg fd;k tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k izrhr ugha gksrk gS vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls tks mDr U;k;n`”Vkar okys izdj.k esa tks iqfyl mifujh{kd }kjk ej.kklu dFku ys[kc) fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ml ij fpfdRld dk fQVusl izek.k i= Hkh ugha Fkk vkSj vkgr jksxh 90 izfr’kr ds djhc ftyk Fkk ,oa vaxqBs dh peM+h Hkh ty xbZ Fkh ,oa ej.kklu dFku lafnX/k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fy[ks x;s Fks vkSj mldh laiqf”V lk{; ls ugha gqbZ Fkh rFkk og vkDlhtu ds lgkjs thfor Fkk rFkk tcfd bl izdj.k esa ej.kklu dFku fpfdRld }kjk fy;k vkSj ml ij vkgr@jksxh ds vaxzsth esa gLrk{kj gS rFkk MkDVj oekZ us mls iw.kZ gks’k gokl esa ik;k Fkk ftldk izek.k i= izn’kZ ih 15 ij mYysf[kr gS rFkk bl ej.kklu dFku izn’kZ ih 15 dh laiqf”V MkDVj ch ds oekZ us Lo;a ds dFkuksa ls dh gSA 33& vr% mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij izn’kZ ih 15 ds ej.kklUu dFku ij vfo’okl ,oa lansg fd;k tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj izn’kZ ih 15 ds ej.kklu dFku ls ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd vkgr@jksxh uhrw fnukad 12-2-10 dks 11%30&11%45 cts nksigj ds yxHkx esa LVksOg ij pk; cuk jgh Fkh rc yqxM+h dk iYyk LVksOg esa yx x;k vkSj og ty xbZ vkSj ml le; ?kj ij blds vykok vkSj dksbZ ugha Fkk vkSj mlds fpYykus ij iM+kslh 2&3 efgyk;sa vkbZ Fkha rc blds ‘kjhj ij ikuh Mkyk Fkk vkSj ml le; bldk ifr fgrsUnzflag [ksr ij FkkA Paragraphs 38 and 39 are also relevant which are also reproduced as under:- 38& mijksDr lk{; ds foospu ls ;g Li”V gS fd vfHk;kstu }kjk vuqjk/kk mQZ uhrw dh e`R;q ds rRdky iwoZ vfHk;qDr ;k mlds ekrk firk] HkkbZ cgu ,oa cgu ds ifr }kjk e`frdk ls ngst dh ekax dh tkuk vksj ,slh ngst ekax ds laca/k esa ;k vU;Fkk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k tkuk vFkok rax fd;k tkuk fl) ugha dj ldk gS ogh vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk e`frdk vuqjk/kk mQZ uhrw dks vkRegR;k ds fy;s nq”izsfjr fd;k tkuk Hkh fl) ugha fd;k tk ldk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu dks /kkjk 113, ;k 113ch Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrk vkSj vfHk;qDr ds fo:) mDr izko/kku ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ ifjdYiuk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 39& mDr foospuk ds vuqlkj Li”V gS fd vfHk;kstu viuk izdj.k ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us efgyk vuqjk/kk ds ifr ,oa ifr ds ukrsnkj gksrs gq, fnukad 12-2-2010 dks o ‘kknh ds ckn ls gh xzke xka/khlkxj ua- 8 fLFkr vfHk;qDrx.k ds fuokl ij vuqjk/kk dks mlds firk ls :i;s vkSj ewY;oku laifRr dks ekax dj rFkk ekax dh iwfrZ ds fy;s izrkfM+r fd;k vkSj bldh iwfrZ u gksus ds dkj.k mls rax dj mlds lkFk Øwjrkiw.kZ vkpj.k fd;k ,oa vuqjk/kk fgrsanzflag ls fookg ds lkr o”kZ dh vof/k ds vanj ngst dh ekax dh iwfrZ gsrq ‘kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r fd;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i vuqjk/kk dh LVksOg ls tydj e`R;q dkfjr gqbZA vr% vfHk;kstu vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk 304ch ,oa 498, Hkknfo dk vijk/k fl) djus esa lQy ugha gqvk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 498, ,oa 304ch Hkknfo ds vijk/k esa lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, nks”keqDr ?kksf”kr fd;k tkrk gSA 6. On the analysis of the evidence on the basis of which the trial Court has reached to a conclusion that in this case a dying declaration of the deceased which exonerates all the respondents is believable more so when the evidence with respect to treating her with cruelty for dowry demand was also not substantiated by the prosecution. 7. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the application moved by the appellants for granting leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment. The same is hereby dismissed.