Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1000 (MP)

Sampat Bai v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2023-12-14

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

body2023
JUDGMENT : By this appeal filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the appellant-Sampat Bai W/o Maujilal Ahirwar has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11-2-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Session Trial No. 33/2001 convicting her for offence under section 498-A of IPC and sentencing her simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- under section 498-A of IPC, in case of non-payment of fine, she should undergo additional S.I. for two months. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The deceased-Sunita got married with Raju Ahirwar, who is son of the appellant herein, on 20-5-1997. The mother of the appellant used to live in her village but some times she also used to visit and stay with them. They lived in a rented house at Laundi. On 25-11-2000, the deceased Sunita poured kerosene and set fire by herself and sustained burn injuries, at that time, her husband Raju Ahirwar was outside the house, on hearing her voice he came inside the house and tried to save her and thereafter she was shifted to the hospital by her husband where Dr. S. S. Chaurasiya examined her and found that she got 100% burn injuries on account of which the Doctor referred to the District- Hospital Chhatarpur. In the meant time, information given to the Additional Tehsildar Laundi as she was able to give statement accordingly, Mr. M. K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar (PW-2) recorded the dying declaration of Sunita in which she stated her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to blame her and said that she allowed some people to her house for watching T.V. Further stated that they also harassed her and she was upset and set fire by herself. After recording the statement, the Dr. Chaurasiya certified the same. The father of the deceased and other relatives came there and met the deceased Sunita enquired about the reason for burning that she stated that her mother-in-law Sampat Bai and Sister-in-law Rani used to harass and beat her, therefore, she set fire by herself. Later, she was shifted to Jhansi Medical College for further treatment on the way she was died on 1-12-2000 and her husband informed the same to the police about the death of his wife. Mr. Later, she was shifted to Jhansi Medical College for further treatment on the way she was died on 1-12-2000 and her husband informed the same to the police about the death of his wife. Mr. A. K. Dubey (PW-9) who was in-charge of police station investigated this case, during the investigation he recorded statement of witnesses and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the Primary Health Centre, Laundi for autopsy, accordingly, Mr. J.P. Nayak who conduced autopsy over the body of the deceased and recorded the reason of death was due to septicemia and 100% burnt and later Mr. A. K. Dubey, who is in-charge of the Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 4/2001 dated 8-1-2001 under sections 306 and 498-A read with section 34 of IPC against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased and inspected the scene and prepared a spot map under the supervision of Mr. Raju Ahirwar. On 11-1-2001, later appellant/accused was arrested and prepared Panchnama and examined the witnesses and it is found that the appellant misbehaved with the deceased, on account of which, the deceased-Sunita committed suicide and after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant/accused thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Laundi took the cognizance of offence under section 306 and 498-A of IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 25-1-2001. A prima-facie case having been established charges under section 306 and 498-A of IPC were framed against the appellant/accused (Sampat Bai) and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited some documents in support of their case. 4. Among the nine prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court relied on the evidence of PW-1 i.e. Doctor S. S. Chaurasiya and PW-2 Chhidami mother of the deceased and PW-3 Santosh brother of the deceased, PW-4 Shri M. K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, PW-6 Dr. J. P. Nayak who conducted autopsy who issued postmortem report, PW-9 Shri A. K. Dubey who had investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. 5. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses the learned trial Court examined the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein she pleaded her innocence specifically stated that all the allegations made against her are false. J. P. Nayak who conducted autopsy who issued postmortem report, PW-9 Shri A. K. Dubey who had investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. 5. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses the learned trial Court examined the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein she pleaded her innocence specifically stated that all the allegations made against her are false. She did never commit such crime as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, further stated that she was residing at her native place which is away from 30 kms. from the residence of the deceased. Thereafter, the learned trial Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and ultimately considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the submissions of the learned counsel of both the sides convicted and sentenced the present appellant by impugned judgment as stated supra. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : “whether there is any flaw or illegality or impropriety in the findings recorded by the trial Court ?”. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his arguments that the accused, none other than the mother-in-law of the deceased, is living separately in the village Kalyanpur. The incident had taken place at Laundi, Chhatarpur District which is 30 kms. away from the place where the deceased and her husband (PW-5) were residing. Further submits that the deceased was committed suicide by herself and drawn the attention of this Court in her dying declaration she has never stated any amount of demand of dowry by the appellant or none others. The allegations levelled against the appellant is that the deceased allowing the other persons in her house for watching T.V. she scolded her and she was upset and committed suicide, therefore, no case is made out under section 498-A of IPC against the appellant as there are no direct allegations regarding she being a party to the alleged torture of the deceased for demand of dowry and further submits that the dying declaration becomes a very important and reliable piece of evidence and she never stated about the harassment by the appellant either physically or mentally for making her demand of dowry. Therefore, there is no absolute rule of law that states the dying statement cannot be used as a sole ground for conviction unless it is backed up with other proof. Further submit that there was no question of the appellant/accused having treated the deceased with cruelty and the case was not abetment of suicide as is being alleged by the prosecution. At the time of the incident, the accused away from the home. Further submits that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide or harassment of dowry there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and further submit that the mere fact that the accused treated the deceased with cruelty is not enough. Merely on the allegations of harassment, conviction in terms of under section 498-A of IPC is not sustainable and the appellant is not guilty of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and no scope for convicting the appellant and the conviction of sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State argued that as may as nine witnesses have been examined and supported the case of prosecution and the deceased has stated the her mother-in-law and sister-in-law was harassed and humiliating her, due to their acts, she poured kerosene and set fire by herself and the learned trial Court convicted the accused considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and dying declaration as herein-above indicated further contended that due to the harassment and demand of dowry on the part of the accused/appellant the deceased was compelled to commit suicide, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record. On a close careful scrutiny of the judgment in paragraph-45 and 46 came to the conclusion that in continuation of misbehaving and scolding the deceased-Sunita for allowing the other persons to their home for watching T.V., the deceased facing inconvenience and committed suicide by setting fire by herself and the appellant/accused convicted under section 498-A of IPC. 11. On perusal of the record, PW-1, the Dr. S. S. Chaurasiya, Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Laundi stated that on 25-11-2000 Mrs. 11. On perusal of the record, PW-1, the Dr. S. S. Chaurasiya, Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Laundi stated that on 25-11-2000 Mrs. Sunita Ahirwar W/o Raju Ahirwar brought her to the hospital for medical treatment and she was 100% burn injuries and she found that deceased Sunita was conscious and was fit to give statement and sent a requisition to the concerned to record her statement and gave treatment and further stated the dying declaration of Sunita Ahirwar was recorded by Additional Tehsildar, Laundi in his presence. 12. (PW-2) Chhidami, who is father of the deceased, stated that he received a phone call when he was in Delhi that his daughter admitted in the hospital and immediately he came to Chhaterpur Hospital when he met his daughter Sunita she was not able to speak properly, upon inquiry, she stated that her mother-in-law Sampat Bai and sister-in-law Rani had fight with her before setting a fire by herself and further stated that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had levelled allegation that she allows another boy to her house for watching TV and having affair with him due to which she felt insult and poured kerosene on her and set fire by herself. In his cross-examination, he stated that there is no report about the demand of dowry. 13. PW-3 Santosh, brother of the deceased Sunita, stated that on receiving an information he went to Chhaterpur Hospital and met her sister Sunita and enquired about incident she stated that her sister-in-law Rani had directly slandered her and demanded a motorcycle to her husband. Further stated that sister-in-law had made a false complaint against her brother Raju. In his cross examination, he stated that no report was made regarding demand of dowry and assault and further stated it is true that today he is speaking about the demand of dowry and assault for the first time in the Court. 14. (PW-4) Shri M.K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, stated that on 25-11-2000 he was posted in Laundi as Additional Tehsildar on receipt of information he went to the hospital and enquired with the doctor about her condition and obtained certificate, the Doctor certified that the patient was conscious and fit to give statement. (PW-4) Shri M.K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, stated that on 25-11-2000 he was posted in Laundi as Additional Tehsildar on receipt of information he went to the hospital and enquired with the doctor about her condition and obtained certificate, the Doctor certified that the patient was conscious and fit to give statement. He enquired with the patient about the incident she stated that she set fire by herself and further stated that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law blamed her that she allowed the people to her house to watch the T. V. and she was upset and set fire. 15. PW-5 Raju Prasad Ahirwar, who is the husband of the deceased and he was not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. 16. (PW-6) Dr.J.P.Nayak, on 1-12-2000 who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Sunita and he opined that the deceased was died due to septicemia and shock and 100% burn injuries. The burn was chronic between 5 to 7 days 17. (PW-7) Deopal is stated that deceased Sunita was his niece who did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. 18. (PW-8) Awadhesh Kumar Singh, who is neighbour of the deceased family stated that he used to go to the house of the deceased and watching TV occasionally. Further stated in the absence of Raju Ahirwar he never went to their house. 19. (PW-9) Mr. A. K. Dubey, who had investigated the case and filed charge-sheet and stated that on 1-12-2000 he posted in Laundi police station as in-charge. On the said date, on report of Raju he registered a merg No. 36/2000 which was Ex.P-6 and investigated the case and transferred the case file to Ravi Mishra. After receiving diary he registered a case in crime No. 4/2001 on 8-1-2001 and he took up the investigation and on 10-1-2001 he prepared a map at the scene and examined the witnesses and appended their signatures on the spot map. On 11-1-2001, he arrested the accused/appellant and sent for judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet. 20. In support of their evidence dying declaration (Ex.P-2) recorded by (PW-4) Mr. On 11-1-2001, he arrested the accused/appellant and sent for judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet. 20. In support of their evidence dying declaration (Ex.P-2) recorded by (PW-4) Mr. M. K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar-cum Additional Magistrate, on perusal of dying declaration deceased set fire by herself and further stated that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law made imputations that she allowed some people to her house to watching T.V., and further stated that she was upset on the imputations and scolded by mother-in-law and sister-in-law, she was set fire by herself at home. 21. From the scrutiny of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that no case under section 498-A of IPC has been made out against the accused-appellant as there is nothing in the evidence of PWs, that what amount was demanded by the accused/appellant in the absence of specific evidence regarding the demand for dowry, mere harassment or scolded her for allowing the neighbours i.e. (PW-8) to her house watching TV would not constitute cruelty under section 498-A of IPC. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer section 498-A reads as follows : “498-A : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this section ‘cruelty’ means – (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 22. On perusal of above provisions and the evidence discussed above there is no evidence of any overt acts by the accused or Ex.P-2 dying declaration recorded by (PW-4) Mr. On perusal of above provisions and the evidence discussed above there is no evidence of any overt acts by the accused or Ex.P-2 dying declaration recorded by (PW-4) Mr. M. K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar there is no demand of dowry by the accused and there was no harassment either physically or mentally except on the day of incident the mother-in-law of the deceased scolded her for allowing (PW-8) neighbour to her house for watching T.V. It is common for admonish by the elderly people of the family. Such acts will not allow by any of the elderly members of the family and the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequence to actually follow cannot be said to be an instigation. 23. A decision reported in Arjun Singh vs. State of M.P., 2014 SCC Online MP 6327 5. .……………… on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : to state that the close relatives of victim have tendency to exaggerate or add facts and the Court should examine their evidence with great care and caution. Counsel submitted that when the testimony of the witnesses does not relate to torture and the case pertains to household work not being done by the prosecutrix, then it does not meant to cruelty or abetment. 24. Another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court has given a succinct enumeration of the objects and ingredients of section 498-A which is quoted below in the Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177 para-3 read as follows : ………The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid “cruelty” which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word “cruelty” as is expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word “cruelty” as is expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of “cruelty” in terms of section 498-A. 25. A careful scrutiny of the evidence on record and examining the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the settled legal position, the conclusion became obvious that no conviction can legally be sustained without credible evidence on record against the appellant in case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 in para -17 read as follows : 17…….. that the Hon’ble Apex Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 26. 26. In the light of the above judgment in order to justify a conviction under the later provision that there must be some cogent and material evidence on record as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that on record some vague evidence of witnesses, brother, father and relatives as regards the manner of deceased as well as the appellant which is not enough to bring home the charge under section 498-A of IPC. 27. On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, none were stated about the demand of dowry by the appellant and harassed her mentally and physically except making allegations that the appellant scolded the deceased for allowing the neighbours to her house for watching T.V. such allegations does not comes under the ingredients of section 498-A of IPC and I find that there is no concrete evidence on record to hold that the presumption would automatically apply in the present case since there is no sufficient evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused for offence u/s 498-A of IPC and further even though the prosecution examined the independent witness as PW-8 but his evidence do not substantiate against the appellant as required for establishing the case under section 498-A of IPC i.e. demand of dowry. 28. Another decision reported in (2023) SCC Online 1369, Paranagauda and another vs. State of Karnataka in para 22 as follows :— In para-3 of the judgment in Laxman case, this Court discussed the juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration in the following manner : (SCC p. 713) “3. The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. 29. While taking into consideration of the evidence of (PW-4) Mr. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. 29. While taking into consideration of the evidence of (PW-4) Mr. M. K. Jain who recorded dying declaration marked as Ex.P-2. The deceased nothing to say anything about the harassment made by the appellant for demand of dowry either physically or mentally except making the allegations that the appellant scolded the deceased allowing the neighbour (PW-8) to her house for watching TV and she was upset and committed suicide. Therefore, in the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased which clearly indicated that there was no torture and harassment of demand of dowry meted out by the accused/appellant on account of which she committed suicide. And further on perusal of evidence of PW-1, there was no independent corroboration is required for establishing the case under section 498-A of IPC i.e. demand of dowry, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 498-A of IPC and believed the prosecution case and convict the accused. 30. Under such circumstances, there is no evidence of any overt acts by the accused and similarly no evidence of demand of dowry to fulfill the ingredients under section 498-A of IPC. Even if, the aforesaid evidence of prosecution witnesses are believed then also the question remains when the accused/appellant demanded money and how and in what manner she tortured the deceased and harassed her as alleged and there is also no statement which can prove that it was a case of repeated and continuous demand of money by the appellant for establishing the case under section 498-A of IPC. The cruelty must be of a such nature as likely to force the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of a woman is required to be proved. Mere omnibus statement regarding the demand of money does not ipso facto make out a case under section 498-A of IPC, prosecution is required to prove that overt-acts attributed by the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 31. On considering the evidence, there is no specific incident narrated against the accused/appellant by any of the witnesses. Mere omnibus statement regarding the demand of money does not ipso facto make out a case under section 498-A of IPC, prosecution is required to prove that overt-acts attributed by the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 31. On considering the evidence, there is no specific incident narrated against the accused/appellant by any of the witnesses. I find that there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement of commission of suicide, merely making omnibus statement or allegation that the accused/appellant used to treat the deceased with cruelty would not suffice for conviction and considering the facts that the evidence is weak in nature then to sustain the conviction. The evidence on record must be shown complete that any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused should not be possible. The evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with her innocence as directed by the Apex Court in the cases referred above. 32. Similarly, I find that there must be concrete evidence to show that the accused in some manner responsible for the suicide. No such evidence is available on record and also not fulfil under the circumstances. On analyzing of the evidence, it is clear that there is no material to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant on the ground that none of the witnesses stated about the demand of dowry by the accused or made harassment to the deceased and committed suicide. 33. Probably, the trial Court impressed upon the fact that the death of Sunita Ahirwar was caused due to burn injuries inside the house where she stayed in the presence of her husband and other family members of in-laws house, but the Court should not be emotional while deciding the criminal case where strict proof is called for, for establishing the guilt of accused person. On the basis of suspicion and emotion, a person should not be convicted by criminal court unless the prosecution establishes their case by way of proof that the accused guilty of offence. 34. For the aforesaid reasons, in the present case the findings of the learned trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable due to lack of proper appreciation of fact and law as indicated above, consequently, the appeal is allowed. 35. 34. For the aforesaid reasons, in the present case the findings of the learned trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable due to lack of proper appreciation of fact and law as indicated above, consequently, the appeal is allowed. 35. The judgment and order dated 11-2-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. 33/2001 in Crime No. 4/2001 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges and set her at liberty forthwith. 36. The bail bonds submitted by appellant are cancelled. 37. Return the lower court records along with copy of judgment.