Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 474 (MP)

Asha Gautam v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-04-24

ATUL SREEDHARAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. On account of the prevailing conditions worldwide, brought about by the COVID 19 virus, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing, to maintain social distancing. The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsels through video conferencing. 2. The appeal has been filed by the Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18/02/2020, passed by the court of the Ld. VI Additional Sessions Judge, Reva, in Sessions Trial No. 600206/2006, whereby the Appellant was convicted for an offence under section 304B read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant was also convicted for an offence under section 498A IPC and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000. 3. Heard on I.A No. 3969/2020 for suspension of sentence. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant has wrongly been convicted, without there being any legal evidence, which could prove the charge against her beyond reasonable doubt. According to the case of the prosecution, Kshama Devi, the daughter-in-law of the Appellant committed suicide by consuming poison in her matrimonial home. The husband of the deceased has absconded and did not stand trial. The Appellant herself is stated to have been absconding for a while before she stood trial. The case against the Appellant is that she heaped indignities on the deceased and persistently harassed the deceased for not bringing a motorcycle in dowry, due to which the deceased committed suicide. 4. This court has gone through the record of the Ld. Trial Court and has examined the statements of the principal witnesses, who are the mother father and grandmother of the deceased. The allegations levelled by them are omnibus in nature and the Appellant herein is only one of those who allegedly, jointly with the others, insisted on a motorcycle being given as dowry. There are no specific allegations against the Appellant. The witnesses have also stated that when they saw the body of the deceased it had blue marks here and there. The post-mortem report of the deceased does not reveal any external injuries to the body. Neither does the post-mortem report reveal any injuries to the internal organs. The opinion of the doctors who carried out the post-mortem is inconclusive. 5. PW6 is Ramakant Gautham, the scribe of the FIR. The post-mortem report of the deceased does not reveal any external injuries to the body. Neither does the post-mortem report reveal any injuries to the internal organs. The opinion of the doctors who carried out the post-mortem is inconclusive. 5. PW6 is Ramakant Gautham, the scribe of the FIR. In his examination in chief, this witness states that he knew the deceased and her husband and also the father in law of the deceased. He further states that on 23/02/06, the deceased died. He further states that he gave the information pertaining to the death of the deceased at PS Baikunthpur. In his cross examination, this witness states that the deceased had got married to the son of the Appellant about 7 to 8 years before the incident. He further states that there was no conflict between the Appellant and the deceased. He further states that the deceased was very comfortable at her matrimonial home and there were no issues relating to the demand of dowry. This witness, though being a prosecution witness, has stated in favour of the Appellant in his cross examination. The prosecution has not declared him hostile and neither has it subjected the witness to further examination. Under the circumstances, the statement of this witness is binding upon the prosecution. 6. The sum totality of the evidence prima facie shows that the allegations against the Appellant are omnibus in nature without any specific act of harassment meted out to the deceased by the Appellant shortly before her death. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed subject to the Appellant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. 7. Once the learned court below is satisfied, as regards the bail bonds, the jail authorities shall comply with the directions given by the Supreme Court with regard to release of prisoners from jail by ensuring that they are first examined by the jail doctor and if they show any symptoms of COVID 19, refer them to such hospital designated by the State and the said hospital, thereafter shall follow the protocol laid down by the State, with regard to the Appellant. The State shall also comply with the directions of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1/2020 about the transportation of such prisoners from the jail to their place of residence. The State shall also comply with the directions of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1/2020 about the transportation of such prisoners from the jail to their place of residence. With the above the application is finally disposed of. A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, Ld. Govt. Advocate, on their respective email address. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Ld. Court below. IA 3969 stands disposed. The Appeal is admitted for final hearing, list in due course.