Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 3 (MP)

Ibrahim v. State of M. P.

2020-01-06

RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed under section 374 of CrPC by the appellants against the judgment dated 14.08.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in Session Trial No. 67/1996, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for four years with fine amount of Rs. 100/-. Default stipulation has also been imposed by the trial Court. 2. According to prosecution case, the marriage of deceased Sakina was solemnized with the appellant No.1/accused. Appellant No. 2 is sister-in-law of deceased/Sakina. On 15.6.1993, the dead body was found near the railway track. Information was given to the police station. Thereafter, Assistant Sub-Inspector, R.S. Sisodiya (PW6) reached on the spot and he prepared lash panchnama vide Ex. P-2 and spot map vide Ex. P-3. The dead body of deceased was sent for the postmortem. Dr. R.K. Damle (PW8) conducted post mortem of dead body of deceased vide Ex. P-10. On 16.6.1993, father of deceased, Budhe Khan (PW1) has identified the dead body as her daughter-Sakina. Marg No. 19/1993 was registered under section 174 of CrPC It was found in the inquiry that there was illicit relationship between the appellants. Deceased objected, then appellants/accused tortured and humiliated her due to which deceased/Sakina committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. Incharge of Police Station R.D. Sharma (P.W-7) lodged the FIR vide Ex. P-8. Viscera was seized vide Ex. P-4. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Appellants/accused were arrested on 21.6.1993 vide Ex. P-9. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under section 306 of IPC against the appellants/accused. 3. In trial, accused persons had abjured their guilt, thus, the trial Court proceeded further with the trial. Prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses and appellants/accused did not examine any witness on his defence in trial. After examining the statements of the witnesses as well as considering the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the accused persons are found guilty for the aforesaid offence. Hence, they have been convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court as aforesaid. 4. After examining the statements of the witnesses as well as considering the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the accused persons are found guilty for the aforesaid offence. Hence, they have been convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction of appellants is unsustainable in law because there is no evidence on record against the appellants/accused on which it can be said that the deceased committed suicide. It is evident from the record that the lane is still in existence near the railway line, the dead body of deceased was found on the lane, so there is most probability that this is an accidental case. Therefore, it can-not be said that deceased committed suicide. There is no reliable evidence available on the record on which it can be said that appellants/accused continuously tortured and humiliated the deceased. Appellants/accused is a poor person, therefore, there was some problems in domestic life, but there is no evidence about cruelty, humiliation and torturing the deceased. So, no case is made out against the appellants/accused for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, he prays that the judgment passed by learned Sessions Court deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the impugned judgment is based upon legal or proper evidence. The prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and convicted the appellants/accused and awarded appropriate sentence. Thus, no interference is warranted in this case. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 7. First question which arises in this case that whether the deceased committed suicide on 15.6.1993. It is admitted fact that deceased did not leave any suicidal note about her death. Assistant Sub-Inspector/R.S. Sisodiya (PW6) deposed in his deposition before the trial Court that he reached on the spot on 15.6.1993 and prepared the lash panchnama in the presence of witnesses vide Ex. P-2. He also prepared the spot map vide Ex. P-3 on 15.6.1993. The dead body of deceased was sent for post mortem vide Ex. P-5 on 15.6.1993. Budde Khan (PW1) has identified her daughter from the cloth vide Ex. P-6. Dr. P-2. He also prepared the spot map vide Ex. P-3 on 15.6.1993. The dead body of deceased was sent for post mortem vide Ex. P-5 on 15.6.1993. Budde Khan (PW1) has identified her daughter from the cloth vide Ex. P-6. Dr. R.K. Damle (PW8) conducted the post mortem of deceased, he opined that deceased was pregnant, she died due to shock and extensive crush injury on her body. Therefore, it is evident from the record and spot map vide Ex. P-3 that the dead body of deceased was lying down on the lane (pagdandi) near railway line. Apart from this no evidence is available on the record whereas it is mentioned in the lash panchnama vide Ex. P-2 that deceased was injured while she was crossing the railway line. Therefore, in this view there is reasonable probability for accidental death. No witness was examined in this regard who saw the deceased jumping in front of the train, therefore, prosecution failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide. 8. In the case of Ajab Singh v. State of MP, reported in 1998(II) MPWN 25 , the Court has acquitted the accused, inter-alia on the ground that the prosecution has not led any positive evidence on record to prove that the death of the deceased of that case, who fell into the well, on account of the fact that she committed suicide and the death was not actual. 9. Therefore, it is not proved that the deceased committed suicide so the findings of learned trial Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, interference is warranted in the findings of the learned trial Court. 10. Now the considerable question is that whether the appellants/accused tortured and humiliated the deceased to commit suicide or not. According to prosecution, the reason behind torturing or humiliating the deceased is that the appellant No.1 was in illicit relationship with appellant No.2. who is sister-in-law of appellant No.1. Deceased objected so appellants tortured and humiliated her, therefore deceased committed suicide. 11. Budde Khan (PW1) is the father of deceased and he had deposed before the trial Court that appellants/accused and mother of appellant No.1 demanded dowry and they tortured and humiliated to the deceased. Appellant No. 1 had slapped her various time. He did not know, how deceased died. 11. Budde Khan (PW1) is the father of deceased and he had deposed before the trial Court that appellants/accused and mother of appellant No.1 demanded dowry and they tortured and humiliated to the deceased. Appellant No. 1 had slapped her various time. He did not know, how deceased died. It is evident that this is not a prosecution case that appellants/accused tortured and humiliated the deceased due to non fulfillment of dowry. Therefore, the evidence of Budde Khan (PW1) is not reliable. He is creating a new story of demand of dowry. He admitted this fact that appellants/accused and himself are also poor person and he was not able to give any dowry to the appellant No.1/accused. He did not tell the police that appellants/accused demanded dowry. Therefore, the evidence of Budde Khan (PW1) is not reliable in this matter. 12. Wahid Khan (PW2) did not allege any specific fact against the appellants/accused. He admitted that his wife told him that appellant No. 2 abused the deceased in filthy language, but his wife was not examined in the trial. Therefore, the evidence of Wahid (PW2) is not important. 13. Islam Khan (PW3) had deposed before the trial Court that deceased told him prior five months from the incident that appellants/accused beat her and appellants/accused were in illicit relation with each other. Islam Khan (PW3) admitted in his cross examination that he did not depose this fact in police statement that appellants/accused used to beat deceased/Sakina and they tortured and humiliated her and appellants/accused were in illicit relation. Therefore, the evidence of Islam Khan (PW3) is not reliable. 14. Kallu (PW4) had also deposed before the trial Court that appellant No.1/accused had beaten the deceased on instigation of appellant No. 2. He did not depose this fact that appellants/accused were in illicit relationship. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of Kallu (PW4) is reliable, he also admitted this fact that he heard from other person that appellant/accused used to beat deceased. 15. Nazar Khan (PW5) had deposed before the trial Court that deceased told him at her father's house that appellants/accused were in illicit relationship. He also admitted that there is ordinary dispute between the husband and wife. 16. Salma Be (PW9) had deposed before the trial Court that deceased told her that appellants/accused beat her and not provide food. 15. Nazar Khan (PW5) had deposed before the trial Court that deceased told him at her father's house that appellants/accused were in illicit relationship. He also admitted that there is ordinary dispute between the husband and wife. 16. Salma Be (PW9) had deposed before the trial Court that deceased told her that appellants/accused beat her and not provide food. Therefore, she had given the food to deceased one or two times. She also deposed before the trial Court that appellant No.1/accused was going in front of her house crying then she asked him what happened then appellant No.1/accused told her, deceased did not return home and she could not be traced. 17. Narmada Prasad Pathak (PW10) has deposed before the trial Court that he lodged the information on the Rojnamcha Sahna vide Ex. P-4 on 14.3.1993. It is mentioned in this Sahna that appellants/accused kept his Sister-in-law. At the time of incident, he was sitting in the house of his Sister-in-law. Deceased/Sakina objected due to which appellants /accused inflicted injuries on deceased/Sakina by kick and fists. 18. In this regard in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 , in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble apex Court has reversed the conviction under section 306 of IPC and upheld the conviction under section 498A of IPC. In that case the deceased had also objected extra marital relationship of the accused with a woman. The relevant para is also quoted as under: "20. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had brought Anita to stay with him at his house three months prior to the date of the death of the deceased. If the deceased had been so perturbed by the act of the appellant in marrying the said Anita and in bringing her to his house that she felt impelled to commit suicide then she could have done so on the very day when Anita had come to stay with the appellant in his house as naturally at that point of time her annoyance or dismay with life would have been at its pinnacle. From the period of three months which elapsed in between the incidents of the appellant bringing Anita to his house and the deceased committing suicide, it can be clearly inferred that it was not the act of the appellant which instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide ." 19. Herein, from the above said discussion, it is reflected that Islam Khan (PW3) had deposed that prior 4 to 5 months of incident, the deceased told him about the illicit relationship of the appellant No.1 with the appellant No.2. There is no other evidence available in the case to prove that the appellants had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu (supra) as well as after careful reading of the statements of aforesaid witnesses, it is evident that there is no ingredient to abetment of suicide by the appellants to the deceased is found in the case. The act of appellants does not fall under the category of the offence of abetment of suicide, so the findings of learned trial Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the conviction awarded under section 306 of IPC is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 14.8.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in Session Trial No. 67/1996 is hereby set aside. Appellants are acquitted from the offence under section 306 of IPC. The appellants are on bail, thus, their bail bond shall be discharged. .................