Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 745 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Virendra

2018-08-30

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : VIVEK AGARWAL, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State under the Provisions of Section 378 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by judgment dated 31.03.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.172/2007 by the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Morena, whereby the learned Sessions Court has acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution story marriage of the deceased had taken place with Virendra on 08.03.1999. She gave birth to two sons after marriage and one of the son died after death of the deceased and another surviving son is staying with his father Virendra. 3. It is also an admitted fact that in the intervening night of 11th October-12th October, 2016, the deceased Sunita had committed suicide. As per postmortem report and the statements recorded by the doctor who had conducted the postmortem namely Dr. M.S. Tomar (PW-3) has opined that there was a ligature mark prior to the death. There was no injury marks or other marks on the body of the deceased and the reason of death was hanging. Her stomach was empty and she had not consumed any food before death. There was gastric juice in her stomach and the death was within 24 hours of the time of performance of postmortem. 4. Ramkali (PW-6) mother of the deceased has mentioned that she had seen the injury marks on the body of her daughter when she had reached at the place where her daughter had committed suicide. This is contrary to the report of Dr. M.S.Tomar (PW-3). 5. It has also come in the statements given by Ramkali (PW-6) and Gopiram (PW5), father of the deceased that for three years, there was no dispute and it has also come on record that there were no demands of dowry at the time of marriage and marriage was performed as per their status. It has also come on record that marriage invitation card was seized vide Panchnama Ex.P-11. 6. It is submitted that since deceased committed suicide, there was no other reason except demand of motorcycle which was started after three years of marriage that forced the deceased to commit suicide. 7. It has also come on record that marriage invitation card was seized vide Panchnama Ex.P-11. 6. It is submitted that since deceased committed suicide, there was no other reason except demand of motorcycle which was started after three years of marriage that forced the deceased to commit suicide. 7. Evidence on record reveals that though both Gopiram (PW-5) and Ramkali (PW-6) have mentioned that since their daughter was harassed, they had convened Caste Panchayat and counselled but there is no independent witness to support the fact of any Caste Panchayat was ever convened. It has also come on record that there is no mention of the fact in Exhibit D-1, statement of PW-5 that there was a threat to the life of the deceased for want of motorcycle. There are material contradictions in the statement of Gopiram (PW-5) who earlier deposed that he had performed the last rites of his daughter but later on, he admitted that he had not known the fact that who had performed the last rites of his daughter. He being father of the deceased was not in a position to say that who had performed the last rites of his daughter. This contradiction is a material fact as Gopiram (PW-5) is a star witness for the prosecution and his testimony is full of omissions and contradictions, inasmuch as a father of a girl was required to keep this fact in mind as to whether he had performed the last rites or the last rites was performed by the in-laws of the deceased/daughter. This material omission also points out towards the tendency of Gopiram (PW-5) to make false accusation. 8. As has been mentioned above that there is no independent witness to support the the contention of the father Gopiram (PW-5) and mother Ramkali (PW-6) that the deceased was harassed. On the contrary, their own relative Budha Singh (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case and has submitted that the deceased was never harassed and when there was no harassment he cannot say, why she had committed suicide. 9. On the contrary, their own relative Budha Singh (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case and has submitted that the deceased was never harassed and when there was no harassment he cannot say, why she had committed suicide. 9. In view of such facts and also the fact recorded in marg intimation (Exhibit P-7) that there is no mention of their daughter committing suicide on account of demand of dowry and the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove any past incidents showing involvement of the accused for demand of dowry or consequential harassment of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not call for any interference and, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.