Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 241 (CHH)

Taramuni Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-25

CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. As these two appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-8-2002 passed by the End Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Surguja in S.T. No. 431/2000 convicting the accused/appellant Taramuni in Cri. A. No. 971/2002 under Sections 302, 304 (B) and 498-A, IPC and accused/appellant Manoj Kumar in Cri. A. No. 972/2002 under Sections 304(B) and 498-A, IPC sentencing accused/appellant Taramuni to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 100/-. R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 100/- and R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs. 100/- respectively, plus default stipulations, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In the present case, name of the deceased is Sumita - wife of accused Manoj Kumar Prajapati in Cri. A. No. 972/2002 and daughter-in-law of accused Taramuni Prajapati in Cri. A.No. 971/2002. The marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant Manoj Kumar in April, 2000 and she died on 22-9-2000 due to drowning in the well. According to the prosecution, on 22-9-2000 there was a quarrel between accused/appellant Taramuni and deceased over stain being found on a bed-sheet and it is said that she pushed deceased into well resulting in her death. Further case of the prosecution is that accused/appellant Taramuni fell into the well but she was rescued by the villagers. After the death of deceased, merg intimation (Ex. P/3) was recorded on 22-9-2000 at 11.00 a.m. at the instance of Manoj Kumar-husband of deceased. On 23-9-2000 a written complaint (Ex. P/7) was made by Gopal Ram Prajapati (PW/8) - uncle of deceased alleging in it that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant Manoj in April, 2000 and they used to demand dowry. It is also alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons and he suspected that it is the accused/appellant Taramuni who has pushed the deceased into the well resulting in her death. Based on this report, FIR (Ex. P/8) was registered against accused persons on 23-9-2000 under Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II read with Section 34, IPC. In the meanwhile, inquest over the body of deceased was prepared on 22-9-2000 vide Ex. P./10. On same day body of deceased was sent for post-mortem to Govt. Hospital, Wadraf Nagar, where Dr. P.L. Verma (PW/5) conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and gave his report Ex. In the meanwhile, inquest over the body of deceased was prepared on 22-9-2000 vide Ex. P./10. On same day body of deceased was sent for post-mortem to Govt. Hospital, Wadraf Nagar, where Dr. P.L. Verma (PW/5) conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and gave his report Ex. P/l opining the cause of death asphyxia due to drowning. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 302, 506, 498-A, IPC. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304(B), IPC against the accused/ appellant Taramuni and under Sections 498-A and 304(B), IPC against accused/appellant Manoj Kumar. 2. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr. PC. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. This apart, witness namely Gouri Prasad Kushwaha (DW/1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that; (i) there is no legally admissible evidence against appellant Taramuni showing her involvement in the commission of murder of deceased. (ii) the possibility that deceased died accidentally or she might have jumped into the well cannot be ruled out. (iii) the conduct of appellant Taramuni is very relevant where she herself jumped into well to save deceased which shows that the appellant Taramuni used to love deceased. (iv) the accused/appellant Taramuni has already remained in jail for more than five years, whereas accused/appellant Manoj Kumar has remained in jail for about 9 months. (v) even accepting the entire prosecution case as it is, under no circumstances accused/ appellant Taramuni can be convicted under Section 302, IPC, and likewise accused/ appellant Manoj Kumar cannot be convicted under Section 304(B), IPC. 5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the accused/appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He also submits that Yashoda Devi (PW/10) has categorically stated that she saw the accused/appellant Taramuni pushing deceased into the well. 6. 5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the accused/appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He also submits that Yashoda Devi (PW/10) has categorically stated that she saw the accused/appellant Taramuni pushing deceased into the well. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Indermaniya (PW/1) is the mother of deceased. She has stated that after the marriage of deceased she had come to her house on the eve of Rakshabandhan and informed that accused/appellants were demanding motorcycle, T.V. and cash for opening kirana shop. In para 3 this witness has also stated that after the marriage deceased had come thrice to her house and all the time she informed that accused/appellants were demanding dowry. This witness also went on to state that the deceased had also informed her about earlier attempt being made by accused/appellants to set her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her. In para 10 of her cross-examination, this witness admits the fact of not disclosing the demand of dowry made by the accused/appellants to any other member including the members of society i.e. Sarpanch, Village Kotwar or village police. 8. Krishna Prasad (PW/2) - the father of deceased has made almost similar allegation as has been made by Indermaniya (PW/1). He has stated that deceased was subjected to cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry. 9. Rampratap (PW/3) and Shyam Dev (PW/4) are the villagers who took out the body of deceased from the well with the help of other villagers. 10. Dr. P.L. Sharma (PW/5) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased vide Ex. P/2 and found following injuries/symptoms:- (i) Foul smell was coming from nose and mouth. (ii) Hair and clothes were wet with water, skull was healthy, eyes were closed, on opening the same were congested. (iii) reddish water was coming from nose. The autopsy surgeon has opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning. 11. Shyamlal (PW/7) is the witness of seizures Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8. 12. Gopal Ram (PW/8) is the uncle of deceased and lodger of written report (Ex. P/7), FIR (Ex. P/8) and witness to inquest (Ex. P/10). (iii) reddish water was coming from nose. The autopsy surgeon has opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning. 11. Shyamlal (PW/7) is the witness of seizures Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8. 12. Gopal Ram (PW/8) is the uncle of deceased and lodger of written report (Ex. P/7), FIR (Ex. P/8) and witness to inquest (Ex. P/10). He has stated that deceased had also made complaint to him of her being ill-treated by the appellants. 13. Mahesh Prasad (PW/9) is the neighbour of appellants. He has stated that the relation between appellants and deceased were cordial. On the date of incident, he saw the accused/appellant Taramuni jumping into the well and with the help of rope she was taken out from it by the villagers. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that accused/appellant Taramuni used to taunt the deceased for bringing inadequate dowry. He has also made allegation against accused/appellant Manoj Kumar. In para 5, this witness has stated that at the morning time when he returned after attending the nature's call, he saw the accused/appellant Taramuni abusing deceased. However, he thereafter left the place for grazing cattle and when he returned, by that time deceased had already fallen into the well. This witness, in para 9, has further stated that while accused/appellant Taramuni was being taken out of the well with the help of villagers, she said that deceased is already under water, therefore, she be taken out first. This witness also went on to state that the accused persons never abused deceased for bringing inadequate dowry. According to this witness, it is incorrect to say that the accused Taramuni did not tell the deceased regarding second marriage of accused Manoj. It is also incorrect to say that accused Taramuni did not say to the deceased to leave her house. 14. Yashoda Devi (PW/10) is the neighbour of accused/appellants. She has stated that she saw the accused/appellant Taramuni abusing and scolding deceased. At the relevant time, one person who was going on bicycle raised voice that accused/appellant Taramuni is dragging deceased towards the well, then this witness saw appellant Taramuni standing near the well. She heard the sound like jumping. 14. Yashoda Devi (PW/10) is the neighbour of accused/appellants. She has stated that she saw the accused/appellant Taramuni abusing and scolding deceased. At the relevant time, one person who was going on bicycle raised voice that accused/appellant Taramuni is dragging deceased towards the well, then this witness saw appellant Taramuni standing near the well. She heard the sound like jumping. This witness, in para 9, has stated that she is not aware as to how the deceased fell into the well, however, in para 6, she has stated that the accused/appellant Taramuni after holding neck of deceased pushed her into the well and sound of splash came from there, but in para 10, she states that when she heard the sound of splash at that time accused/appellant Taramuni was standing near the well. On the basis of assumption this witness has stated that appellant Taramuni might have pushed deceased, however, she has again denied that she saw the accused/appellant Taramuni pushing deceased into the well. 15. Om Narayan (PW/11) is the patwari who prepared sport map vide Ex. P/9. 16. J.P. Gupta (PW/12) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. 17. Mathura Prasad (PW/13) is the uncle of deceased. He has stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for bringing inadequate dowry in the marriage. 18. Bendict Tippo (PW/14) is the witness of inquest Ex. P/10. 19. Gouri Prasad Kushwaha (DW/1) has stated that relation of the accused/appellants with deceased was cordial, whereas their relation with Mahesh Prasad (PW/9) and Yashoda Devi (PW 710) were not cordial. 20. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that there is no conclusive piece of evidence with regard to fact that it is the accused/appellant Taramuni who pushed deceased into the well. Mahesh Prasad (PW/9) and Yashoda Devi (PW/10) in their examination-in-chief have made an attempt to make some allegation against accused/appellant Taramuni but they admit that they have not seen the accused/appellant Taramuni pushing deceased into the well rather they have seen her jumping into the well. There is also no evidence on record as to whether deceased jumped herself into the well or she fell into the well accidentally. The prosecution has also not adduced evidence as to whether the well was fenced or not. There is also no evidence on record as to whether deceased jumped herself into the well or she fell into the well accidentally. The prosecution has also not adduced evidence as to whether the well was fenced or not. Though there is evidence on record to show that a quarrel had taken place between accused/appellant Taramuni and deceased over stain being found on the bed-sheet and during that she might have abused deceased but unfortunately there is no conclusive piece of evidence against the accused/appellant Taramuni proving that it is she who pushed the deceased into the well or that the deceased herself jumped into the well. That apart, possibility of deceased falling accidentally into the well can also not be ruled out as another aspect of the case is that the accused/appellant Taramuni had also jumped into the well to save deceased. 21. Thus, from all the surrounding circumstances and taking entire evidence as it is, we found it difficult to uphold the conviction of the accused/appellant Taramuni under Section 302, IPC. Likewise, under no circumstances accused/appellant Manoj Kumar can be convicted under Section 304(B), IPC. The trial Court while convicting and sentencing accused/appellant Taramuni under Section 302, IPC and accused/appellant Manoj Kumar under Section 304(B), IPC has not considered the evidence in its proper perspective and thereby erred in law in convicting them for the said offence. However, there is sufficient evidence on record against the accused/appellants warranting their conviction under Section 498-A, IPC. The prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that the accused/appellants used to harass deceased on the ground of demand of dowry in particular T.V., motorcycle and cash for opening Kirana Shop. Thus the conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 498-A, IPC appears to be justified and the same is being maintained. Likewise, conviction of the accused/appellant Taramuni under Section 304(B) is not sustainable in the eye of law. 22. In the aforesaid view of the matter, conviction of the accused/appellant Taramuni in Cri. A. No. 971/2002 under Sections 302 and 304(B), IPC and accused/appellant Manoj Kumar in Cri. A. No. 972/2002 under Section 304(B) are hereby set aside. Their conviction under Section 498-A, IPC is hereby maintained. Accused/appellant Taramuni has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 498-A, IPC. She has already remained in jail for more than five years, thereby she has already completed the entire sentence imposed upon her. A. No. 972/2002 under Section 304(B) are hereby set aside. Their conviction under Section 498-A, IPC is hereby maintained. Accused/appellant Taramuni has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 498-A, IPC. She has already remained in jail for more than five years, thereby she has already completed the entire sentence imposed upon her. She is reported to be on bail, her bail bonds stand discharged and she need not surrender. 23. So far as sentence imposed upon accused/appellant Manoj Kumar under Section 498-A, IPC is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The incident had taken place about 16 years back, he has already remained in jail for nine months, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail and, therefore, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged and need not to surrender. The appeals are thus partly allowed. Appeal Partly Allowed.