Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 705 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Rakesh

2017-05-24

J.K.MAHESHWARI, J.P.GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. This appeal under Section 378(i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant State of M.P. against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.4.2003 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 59/2001 by which accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 304-B and/or Section 302 of the IPC. 2. The prosecutions story, as alleged, was deceased Sonal died in other than normal circumstances by hanging on 1.11.2000. She was married with accused Sanjay Jaiswal on 26.11.1995. It is alleged that a demand of Rs. 6,50,000/- was made to purchase a plot and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, deceased was subjected to cruelty, however, by harassment she died by hanging in other than normal circumstances. The intimation was given by brother-in-law Rakesh Jaiswal to SHO, P.S. Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal. The FSL team reached on the spot on 2.11.2000 and prepared the Panchnama and spot map of the dead body and made a note that cause of death is due to hanging in the nature of suicide. The statements of family members of the deceased were recorded and because the deceased died by hanging in other than normal circumstances, therefore, offence under Section 304-B of the IPC was registered against brother-in-law Rakesh Jaiswal, husband Sanjay Jaiswal, Father-in-law Krishna Kumar Jaiswal, Mother-in-law Smt. Vinodini and Sister-in-law (bhabhi) Smt. Neena Jaiswal. 3. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the competent Court, however, the Magistrate Court took the cognizance and committed it to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court framed charge under Section 304-B of the IPC and in alternative under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and took the defence that there was no demand of dowry. The transaction of Rs. 6,50,000/-, as alleged, was not towards demand of dowry but it is under an agreement to purchase a plot in the name of deceased Sonal and out of the total amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- were returned to them, Rs. 50,000/- were paid to seller under agreement and Rs. 1,00,000/- were deposited in the account of the deceased. It is said, in fact a letter written by the deceased Sonal to one Jitendra Singh Thakur was received by accused Krishna Kumar Jaiswal along with Diwali Greeting wherein deceased was having intimacy and want to meet with him. 50,000/- were paid to seller under agreement and Rs. 1,00,000/- were deposited in the account of the deceased. It is said, in fact a letter written by the deceased Sonal to one Jitendra Singh Thakur was received by accused Krishna Kumar Jaiswal along with Diwali Greeting wherein deceased was having intimacy and want to meet with him. Its intimation was given to her husband Sanjay, thereafter information was given by Sanjay to the father of deceased Ganesh Jaiswal who was coming on 2.11.2000, however, prior to the visit of the father with father-in-law, she committed suicide, therefore, it is not a case of dowry death or cruelty and harassment, even all the family members have been falsely implicated. 4. Learned trial Court while passing the judgment recorded the finding that plea of demand of dowry or cruelty has not been proved by cogent evidence. Letters Ex. P-4 and P-5 allegedly filed to establish demand of dowry, have not been proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased. The alleged demand of Rs. 6,50,000/- has been admitted by the accused persons out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- have been returned and remaining amount was either paid for the plot or in the account of the deceased. In fact, the letter Ex.D-7 written by the deceased has been proved by the evidence of Chandrashekhar Sarvate (DW-10) wherein deceased has expressed intimate relation with Jitendra Thakur. On coming to know regarding such relation by the accused persons, the father of the deceased was called and prior to reaching of her father, she committed suicide, therefore, it is not a case of dowry death by the deceased and the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus to presume that the cause of death is due to demand of dowry. In fact the presumption against has been rebutted bringing cogent evidence by the accused persons in defence, therefore, charge under Section 304-B and/or 302 of the IPC has not been found prove. 5. Learned Government Advocate representing the State has strenuously urged that the date of marriage of the deceased with Sanjay is 26.11.1995 and the deceased died by hanging in other than normal circumstances on 1.11.2000 within 7 years of marriage. 5. Learned Government Advocate representing the State has strenuously urged that the date of marriage of the deceased with Sanjay is 26.11.1995 and the deceased died by hanging in other than normal circumstances on 1.11.2000 within 7 years of marriage. Looking to the evidence of family members of the deceased Vinod Kumar (PW-1), Ganesh Jaiswal (PW-5) and Sheetal Jaiswal (PW- 6), the demand of dowry has been established but the trial Court has committed error to disbelieve their testimony in lieu of the defence taken by the accused persons, however, those findings are not based on due appreciation of evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand learned Senior Counsel representing the accused persons has contended that looking to the entire prosecution case and the evidence of the prosecution itself, they have not proved the demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment within 7 years of marriage of the deceased. In absence thereto, the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court is in accordance with law which do not warrant any interference in this appeal. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the evidence of the prosecution Vinod Kumar (PW-1) and Gulshan Rai (PW-2), who are independent witnesses, the demand of dowry has not been alleged ever and heard by them. The defence witnesses also stated that they have never seen any quarrel prior to death of the deceased. The family members of the deceased Vinod Kumar (PW-1), Ganesh Jaiswal (PW-5) and Sheetal Jaiswal (PW-6) have stated that there was a demand of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards dowry but in fact the said demand is not for demand of dowry but to purchase the plot. Rs. 5,00,000/- have already been returned by the accused persons and out of the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- has been paid to the purchaser of the plot under agreement and Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited in the account of deceased Sonal, therefore, such demand was for the purpose of transaction, which cannot be termed to be dowry demand. In addition to the aforesaid, the valuable document Ex. D-7, which is a letter written by the deceased to one Jitendra Singh Thakur, residing as a tenant in the house, was captured by father-in-law of the deceased along with Diwali greeting. In addition to the aforesaid, the valuable document Ex. D-7, which is a letter written by the deceased to one Jitendra Singh Thakur, residing as a tenant in the house, was captured by father-in-law of the deceased along with Diwali greeting. After communication of the said fact to the husband of the deceased, her parents were called from Nagpur and they were supposed to come on 2.11.2000. In the said letter, deceased shown her intimacy with Jitendra Singh Thakur and want to meet him, however, a date prior of the visit of the father of the deceased for meeting with father-in-law, she committed suicide. Considering the overall evidence brought on record and looking to the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC, it cannot be termed to be a case of death by hanging in other than normal circumstances particularly looking to her suicide note (Ex. D-5) and defence document (Ex.D-7) which were found prove by the trial Court. No evidence is available on record regarding demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment against the deceased soon before death. In fact, the evidence as brought is not for demand of dowry but it was a transaction of purchase of plot, which cannot be equated with the demand of dowry. In the said context, it is to observe that the defence has discharged their burden rebutting the evidence of the prosecution, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the charge under Section 304-B and/or Section 302 of the IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in this appeal. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court not proving charge under Section 304-B and/or 302 of the IPC is based on due appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in this appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.