Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1212 (MP)

Kuber v. State of M. P.

2017-11-27

S.K.PALO

body2017
ORDER 1. Shri Naresh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Ms. Shahin Fatima, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 3. Shri Ankit Agnihotri, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Considered I.A. No.12354/2017, an application for compromise. 5. Section 498A of the IPC is a non-compoundable offence, therefore, it can only be considered at the time of final verdict and at the time of passing sentence. 6. Heard finally. 7. Deceased Rajkumari was the legal wedded wife of appellant Kuber. Their marriage was solemnized observing Hindu rites. After the marriage, deceased Rajkumari was allegedly harassed mentally, physically and was subjected to cruelty. The deceased had complained to her maternal family members about the cruelty cased to her. Father of the appellant, admitting the mistake promised that the deceased and her husband will be living separately in another house and she will not go to the house at village Tendukheda. After one year, the appellant took the deceased and again she was subjected to cruelty at Tendukheda. On 14.5.2009, because of the harassments caused to her by her husband and father-in-law, she poured kerosene oil on herself and was about to set ablaze. But she did not set ablaze due to her attachment with her children. In the year 2009, because of the harassment, she consumed poison and ended her life. On this information of Annu Sahu, Merg was registered. After the inquest report, Police Station Parasia, lodged Crime No.306/2009 for offence under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. Shankar, the father-in-law of the deceased, died during the pendency of the case on 13.10.2009. Therefore, the case abated against Shankar. Appellant Kuber stood trial for offence under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. 8. When charge was explained, the appellant abjured guilt and claimed false implication. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, acquitted the appellant for offence under section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him for two years' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- for offence 498A of the IPC. 9. The appellant preferred this appeal on several ground. Meanwhile, he has entered into compromise with the LRs of deceased Rajkumari. So far as the offence under section 498A is concerned, it is not a compoundable offence, therefore, it can only be considered for reduction of the sentence part. 10. Deceased Rajkumari died due to consumption of poison. 9. The appellant preferred this appeal on several ground. Meanwhile, he has entered into compromise with the LRs of deceased Rajkumari. So far as the offence under section 498A is concerned, it is not a compoundable offence, therefore, it can only be considered for reduction of the sentence part. 10. Deceased Rajkumari died due to consumption of poison. The post mortem report (Ex.P-13) dated 29.7.2009 reveals that she died due to poisoning. No definite opinion was given about the type of poison. But, viscera was preserved for chemical and pathological examinations. The post mortem report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, shows that organo phosphorus was present, which is a pesticide of monocrotophos. 11. The allegation of harassment has been narrated by Annu (PW1), sister of the deceased. Smt. Malti (PW2) sister of the deceased has also narrated the incident, in which, the deceased communicated to her about causing harassment by the appellant. Savitri Sahu (PW4), the sister-in-law of the deceased, has also stated that appellant Kuber was harassing the deceased, because of which the deceased indicated to her when she used to visit her maternal home. Radheshyam was the brother-in-law of the deceased, a co-brother of the appellant. He has also given the details of the cruelty caused to the deceased. Another cousin brother Rajaram has also narrated about the incident and stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant. The statements of all these witnesses do not create any suspicion, on the other hand, they corroborate each other and supported the prosecution case. Barring few minor contradictions, there is nothing to discard the evidence available against the appellant. The statements of all the prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. The same cannot be brushed aside, therefore, the cause of the harassment to the deceased is established beyond reasonable doubt. 12. The learned trial Court in the judgment impugned has also analyzed the evidence and with reasons come to the conclusion, convicting the appellant. 13. That being so, the conviction is maintained. The appellant is held guilty for committing offence under section 498A of the IPC. 14. 12. The learned trial Court in the judgment impugned has also analyzed the evidence and with reasons come to the conclusion, convicting the appellant. 13. That being so, the conviction is maintained. The appellant is held guilty for committing offence under section 498A of the IPC. 14. So far as the sentence part is concerned, keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the family members of the deceased and the appellant, it is liberally considered that the appellant remained in custody from 8.6.2009 to 16.6.2009 for about 9 days and he has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. 15. Considering the conviction, sentence and compromise arrived at between the family LRs of the deceased and the appellant, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. 16. This appeal is, accordingly disposed of.