Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 186 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ajay Sharma

2015-02-12

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal in criminal case No. 672/2000, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 6.12.1995, marriage of the respondent took place with one Priti (P.W.2). The respondent was residing with his aunt Poonam Sharma and uncle Rakesh Sharma at Geeta Apartments, Bhopal. After few days of marriage, the respondent alongwith her relatives started demanding dowry of Rs.10,000/- and a scooter from Priti. She was beaten in consequence of demand. Priti went to her uncle Rakesh Kumar Sharma but, no resolution took place. Thereafter, the respondent Ajay took his wife Priti to her parents' house at Gwalior and left her. Thereafter, the respondent had lodged a suit for divorce. On 14.10.1996, Rakesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.5), uncle of the victim had lodged a written report, Ex.P/2 at Police Station Govindpura and a case was registered at crime No. 590/1996. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court. 3. The respondent abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that though his wife Priti was not insane but, her mental status was equivalent to 10 years old child. In defence, A.P. Verma (D.W.1), Dr.R.N. Sahu (D.W.2) etc. were examined. 4. The JMFC, Bhopal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondent and his relatives from the charge of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 5. Since no one was appearing for the respondent since long, Shri G.S. Thakur, Advocate who is in the panel of High Court Legal Services Authority and has a vast experience in criminal side was appointed by High Court Legal Services Authority to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent and thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. After considering the evidence given by Priti Sharma (P.W.2), it appears that her mental status was like a child. She has stated before the Court according to information given by her uncle Rakesh Kuamr Sharma (P.W.5). Though she had denied that she was tutored by her uncle but, after considering her answers, she could not tell about the year, which was running at the time of her statement. She has stated before the Court according to information given by her uncle Rakesh Kuamr Sharma (P.W.5). Though she had denied that she was tutored by her uncle but, after considering her answers, she could not tell about the year, which was running at the time of her statement. She could not tell about her date of birth and there are so many facts brought in the cross-examination to show that her mental status was not up to the mark and her IQ was equivalent to a child aged 10 years. In this context, evidence of Dr.R.N. Sahu (D.W.2) may be accepted, who had examined Priti Sharma and found that her mental status was equivalent to mental status of 10 years old child. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for the respondent to harass such a wife for demand of dowry. 7. According to Priti Sharma, she remained for 4-5 days with the respondent in the beginning. Thereafter, she went to her father's house. Again she remained for 8-10 days with the respondent and thereafter, the respondent left her to the house of her parents. She has accepted that her marriage took place in December, 1995 and after December, 1995, she never visited to the house of the respondent. Therefore, she stayed in the house of the respondent for hardly 15 days in all, it cannot be said that she was being harassed for dowry demand or otherwise. 8. Jagjeet Singh (P.W.1), P.N. Sharma (P.W.3), Sukkhan Singh Kaler (P.W.4), Rakesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.5) have stated much about the behaviour of the respondent towards his wife. They have claimed that they heard cries of the victim Priti Sharma from the house of the respondent but, if cross-examination of these witnesses is considered then, it would be apparent that all such witnesses were friends of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who were not residents of the same building, where the respondent was residing. They were residing at distant places and they could not hear the cries of Priti Sharma at their house. They were residing at distant places and they could not hear the cries of Priti Sharma at their house. Looking to the typed FIR, Ex.P/2, it appears that Rakesh Kumar Sharma got the FIR prepared from some law knowing person and submitted it to the SHO, Police Station Govindpura, Bhopal and he created the witnesses according to the facts mentioned in the FIR, Ex.P/2, whereas looking to the condition of Priti and period in which she remained with the respondent, such allegations as made in the FIR, Ex.P/2 appear to be unnatural. There was no possibility of such behaviour from the side of the respondent and his relatives. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, evidence given by various witnesses of the prosecution, it would be apparent that Priti was sent to her father's house in December, 1995 itself and the FIR was not lodged by Priti herself or her parents but, it was lodged by her uncle Rakesh Kumar Sharma with delay of 10 months, when a suit for divorce was filed by the respondent on the basis of mental condition of Priti. There is no reason as to why the FIR was lodged with such a delay. If there was demand of dowry from the side of the respondent and the respondent harassed his wife then, Priti wife of the respondent must have told about such facts to her parents. It is surprising that no FIR was lodged by parents of Priti. It appears that FIR was lodged by Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who was mediator for arrangement of marriage, simply to counter the divorce suit filed by the respondent. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, when Priti wife of the respondent remained with the respondent only for few days and she had mental status like a child of 10 years then, it was not possible for the respondent to harass her or to demand any dowry. If the respondent would have left his wife to the house of her parents at Gwalior then, her parents would have information that she was left by the respondent because of demand of dowry, if he had demanded any dowry from them but, parents of Priti did not appear before the trial Court to give such evidence. If the respondent would have left his wife to the house of her parents at Gwalior then, her parents would have information that she was left by the respondent because of demand of dowry, if he had demanded any dowry from them but, parents of Priti did not appear before the trial Court to give such evidence. Hence, looking to the conduct of the respondent that he was fed up within few days with his wife due to her mental condition and he left her to the house of her parents and filed a suit for divorce. Under these circumstances, FIR lodged by Rakesh Kumar Sharma was nothing but, a creation done by him against the respondent. It appears that the respondent felt that he was cheated by Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who was mediator for arrangement of the marriage that he was given a wife having mental status like a child and if he knew about that fact, he would not have entered into the contact of marriage with Priti. Hence, FIR lodged by Rakesh Kumar Sharma could be lodged with the object that no case of cheating should be filed against him by the respondent. 11. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. There was no iota of actual evidence to show that the respondent has done any cruelty with his wife for demand of dowry or on any other reason. Hence, there is no reason to accept the appeal filed by the State. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State against the aforesaid judgment is hereby dismissed. 12. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below alongwith their record for information.