Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 642 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Lakhan Singh

2016-08-01

N.K.GUPTA, VIVEK AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER Gupta, J.-- 1. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Guna, in S.T.No.239/1996, whereby respondent- Lakhan Singh has been acquitted from the charges of sections 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC, the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 23.4.1996, it was informed by Devendra Singh (PW7) at Police Station, Bahadurpur, that deceased Savitri Bai was seen in healthy condition in the noon, but at about 7 to 8 p.m., she was found dead. One doctor was also called to examine the deceased, but she could not be saved. A Merg intimation (Ex.P-5) was recorded at Police Station. Dead-body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Dr. Y.S.Tomar (PW8) along with a team of doctors had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and he found that deceased died due to strangulation and that her death was not natural. Thereafter, in investigation it was found that she was being harassed by the respondent for dowry demand etc., and therefore, after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed which was duly committed to the Court of Session and ultimately transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. In the present case, charges of offence under section 302 IPC were not framed, and therefore, external injuries found on the body of deceased Savitri Bai by Dr. Y.S.Tomar (PW8) has no much meaning. It was a case of suicide according to the prosecution, and therefore, it is admitted that death of deceased Savitri Bai was an unnatural death. 5. Initially the parents and the relatives of the deceased have made omnibus allegations against the respondent that he harassed his wife for dowry demand etc., however, Rajaram (PW4) brother of the deceased, Babu Khan (PW15) family friend of brother of the deceased, Chand Khan (PW16) family friend of brother of the deceased, Dhanbai (PW17) sister-in-law of the deceased and Laxmibai (PW18) another sister-in-law of the deceased, were examined and each of them has turned hostile. Under these circumstances, there is no evidence on record to say that deceased Savitri Bai was being harassed for dowry demand or she was dealt with cruelty for any reason. Under these circumstances, there is no evidence on record to say that deceased Savitri Bai was being harassed for dowry demand or she was dealt with cruelty for any reason. These were the only witnesses who were examined on behalf of parental side of the deceased, whereas other witnesses, who were neighbours of the respondent, did not say anything about such harassment etc. Under these circumstances, in absence of any evidence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of sections 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC. 6. It is apparent from the very beginning that deceased Savitri Bai has committed suicide after six years of her marriage, and therefore, in six years she was settled in the family life. If she would have been harassed for dowry demand etc., then she would have informed her parents and relatives within time and she would have been kept in father's house or brother's house for a longer period till the dispute between deceased Savitri Bai and respondent would have been resolved, but there is no evidence to show that she made any complaint in her life time or any Panchayat of reputed persons of the community was called or any FIR was lodged by the deceased in her life time. Under these circumstances, in absence of any evidence the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that respondent dealt with his wife with cruelty due to any reason or due to cruelty for dowry demand she committed suicide. 7. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the State appeal, and therefore, it cannot be accepted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. The judgment passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. 8. The respondent is on bail, his presence is no more required before this Court, therefore, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 9. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information. B. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for appellant/State; R. K. Goyal for respondent.