Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1160 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ajay @ Ajju

2015-11-06

N.K.GUPTA, S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on leave application. 2. The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khandwa in ST No.77/2014 whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of section 304B or in alternate section 302 and section 498A of IPC. 3. The prosecution's case in short, is that, wife of the respondent No.1 and daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2, Rekha Bai had committed suicide on 14.1.2014 at house of the respondent No.1 situated at Sankheda Road, Jawar, District Khandwa. Naveen @ Vikky went to the Police Station, Jawar and lodged a merg intimation that in the night when all the family members were sleeping, at about 2.30 p.m. a child started weeping then on enquiry it was found that the deceased Rekha was hanging with a rope through the ceiling fan. The Police prepared various memos and recovered the dead body. It was sent for post mortem. Dr. Narendra Patel (PW4) performed the post-mortem and gave a report Ex.P-4. According to him the deceased died due to hanging. Thereafter, the parents and relatives of the deceased have made allegations that she was killed by the respondents and she was being harassed for dowry demand etc. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court, it would be apparent that no eye witness was examined. According to Dr. Narendra Patel (PW4) there was no possibility that death of the deceased Rekha Bai was homicidal. Hence, the respondents cannot be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of section 302 of IPC. 4. Ramsukh (PW1) has stated in para 2 of his statement that Rekha Bai left two children aged 5-6 year and 1A½ year. He has accepted in para 11 that Rekha Bai delivered a girl child after her marriage and that child had expired when she was taken from Khidkiya to the house of the respondents. He has also accepted that second girl was born after two years of the delivery of the first child. He has accepted in para 11 that Rekha Bai delivered a girl child after her marriage and that child had expired when she was taken from Khidkiya to the house of the respondents. He has also accepted that second girl was born after two years of the delivery of the first child. If a second girl which was born to the deceased Rekha Bai was aged 5-6 years at the time of her death then certainly the first girl should have been born to the deceased Rekha Bai two years back and therefore, the first girl had died 6-8 years prior to death of Rekha Bai. The first girl would have been born at least nine months of the marriage of the deceased Rekha and therefore, it is apparent that the deceased Rekha has died after seven years of her marriage and therefore, the respondents could not be convicted of offence under section 304B of IPC. 5. Also the witnesses Kamlesh (PW1), Rajesh (PW2) and Radha Bai (PW3) have accepted that the respondent Ramratibai @ Munnibai was not residing with the deceased. She was residing with her elder son at Khandwa. She visited the house of the respondent No.1 approximately 6-7 months prior to death of the deceased Rekha Bai and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 Ramratibai @ Munnibai was harassing the deceased for dowry demand soon before her death. Hence, the respondent No.2 Ramratibai could not be convicted either for offence under section 304B or 498A of IPC. 6. The witnesses Kamlesh, Rajesh and Radha Bai have accepted that status of these witnesses and Rekha Bai was of labourers. The status of the respondent No.1 was the same. All of them have accepted that Rekha Bai was accepted in the family of the respondents without giving any gift etc. It was cleared by the witnesses to the respondents that the deceased Rekha Bai was an orphan and her brother and sister-in-law could not give anything to her and thereafter, the respondents accepted the marriage. Radha Bai and Kamlesh have stated that her brother Rajesh gave some amount so that respondent No.1 could open a shop at Jawar. However, Rajesh (PW2) did not claim any amount given by him to the respondent No.1. The allegations made by Kamlesh and Radha Bai appears to be contradictory to their previous case diary statement. Radha Bai and Kamlesh have stated that her brother Rajesh gave some amount so that respondent No.1 could open a shop at Jawar. However, Rajesh (PW2) did not claim any amount given by him to the respondent No.1. The allegations made by Kamlesh and Radha Bai appears to be contradictory to their previous case diary statement. If statements of these three witnesses are considered minutely then it would be apparent that after death of the deceased these witnesses have kept silent for two weeks and thereafter, they made omnibus allegations against the respondents. They did not specifically state that which article was demanded by the respondents and whether the deceased Rekha Bai was beaten in consequence of demand. Under such circumstances, it appears that these witnesses are making a false allegation relating to demand of dowry. In this context it should be again mentioned that if the respondent No.2 was not residing at all with the deceased Rekha Bai in last one year of her marital life then how could she harass the deceased Rekha Bai for demand of dowry whereas, the witnesses have accepted that the respondent No.1 has provided a mobile phone to deceased Rekha. Under these circumstances, the prosecution witnesses could not prove that the deceased was being harassed by any of the respondents for dowry demand or otherwise. Hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of sections 304B and 498A of IPC. There is no reason to grant leave. If leave is granted he appeal filed by the State shall not succeed. Under these circumstances, leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed. 7. Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below along with its record for information.