Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 205 (MP)

Krishna @ Kinna v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-03-20

DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, VIVEK AGARWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Learned counsel for appellants prays for withdrawal of I.A. No.5518/2025, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants. Accordingly, I.A. No.5518/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion hearing stage. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.44/2017 dated 18.02.2022 by which the appellant No.1 Krishna @ Kinna has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine amount of Rs.500/- R.I. for 10 years and R.I. for 03 years with fine amount of Rs.500/- and the appellant No.2 Deepak has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and R.I. for 03 years with fine amount of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that deceased Lata was married with the appellant No.1 Krishna and from their wedlock two children, one son Sameer (4 years) and one daughter Kavya (2 years) were born. In brickkiln of Tularam Prajapati (PW-1), both were working as labourer. On 13.12.2016 at about 9:00 PM they took the food and on that time her brother-in-law (appellant No.2 Deepak) came and appellant No.1 Krishna asked her to bring Rs.1 lakh for business of brick from her father, on that the deceased expressed her inability after that the appellant No.1 Krishna and his brother appellant No.2 Deepak both made quarrel with her and the appellant No.1 Krishna asked her to leave the house and go to her parental home and on that dispute took place and victim being harassed by the act, poured the Kerosene of oil lamp on herself and appellant No.1 Krishna lit the fire by matchstick and as a result the deceased/victim started burning and cried for help, co-accused appellant No.2 Deepak ran away from the spot and the co-worker Rakesh came and extinguished the fire. 3. Her uncle-in-law (chacha sasur) came along with Tukaram Prajapati and appellant No.1 Krishna and brought the victim to the hospital and she was admitted in District Hospital Chhindwara. 3. Her uncle-in-law (chacha sasur) came along with Tukaram Prajapati and appellant No.1 Krishna and brought the victim to the hospital and she was admitted in District Hospital Chhindwara. She was medically examined and on the information given by the hospital, ASI R.K. Baghel (PW-13) visited the hospital and registered the Dehatinalishi and on that basis Crime No.521/2016 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC against the appellant No.1 Krishna and appellant No.2 Deepak. The Executive Magistrate (Nayab Tahsildar) (PW-5) had recorded her dying declaration (Ex.P-8). Victim was brought to the District Hospital Chhindwara and from there to IGGMC Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra and during treatment she died on 21.12.2016. Autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the deceased. After the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhindwara and on 07.02.2017 after commitment, the case was submitted to the trial Court. 4. Trail Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 in alternate Sections 302, 498-A and 304-B of the IPC against the appellant No.1 Krishna and Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC against the appellant No.2 Deepak. Appellants had abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. Trial Court recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses, examined the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but appellants did not examine any defence witness. Trial Court after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment by which the appellants have been sentenced as stated in Para-1 of the judgment of this appeal. 6. Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants as there was no demand of dowry. Demand of dowry is a different and demand of money from his father-in-law or family members of victim for business is different and it does not constitute the offence of demand of dowry. Father-in-law Gulabchand Parajapati (PW-7) has stated that the appellant No.1 was demanding Rs.1 lakh from her daughter and was harassing for that. He had clearly told his son-in-law that they are not in the status to pay Rs.1 lakh but appellant No.1 Krishna did not stop demanding the money. Father-in-law Gulabchand Parajapati (PW-7) has stated that the appellant No.1 was demanding Rs.1 lakh from her daughter and was harassing for that. He had clearly told his son-in-law that they are not in the status to pay Rs.1 lakh but appellant No.1 Krishna did not stop demanding the money. On the date of incident, his daughter had told him that appellant No.2 Deepak caught hold her and appellant No.1 Krishna poured the Kerosene and by putting the matchstick burned her and submitted that victim herself has not stated in her Dehatinalishi (Ex.P-15). Ex.P-15 was recorded on 16.12.2016 in which she has stated that she herself poured the Kerosene and appellant No.1 Krishna lit the matchstick, whereas in her dying declaration proved by Ram Krishna Sahu, Nayab Tahsildar (PW-5) that was recorded on 17.12.2016, victim has stated that by her own fault, she was burned. 7. Learned counsel for appellants has also argued that the victim was admitted in the Hospital on 13.12.2016 and as per MLC report (Ex.P-14) and that MLC was itself sent by Police Authorities but the Investigating Officer, R.K. Baghel (PW-13) and Inspector Praveen Dhurve (PW-15) have stated that they got the information and they firstly visited the hospital on 16.12.2016. 8. Father of victim has clearly stated that he went to the hospital on the same night when he got the information. Victim had given the statement to the Nayab Tahsildar with her full consent and there was no demand of dowry, some quarrel had taken place and that is why victim committed suicide, hence, no presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act is applicable in the case. The statement of Gulabchand Prajapati (PW-7) is not supported by deceased herself. No FIR or complaint was lodged regarding the conduct of the appellant, hence, the appeal be allowed and appellants be acquitted from all the charges. 9. The statement of Gulabchand Prajapati (PW-7) is not supported by deceased herself. No FIR or complaint was lodged regarding the conduct of the appellant, hence, the appeal be allowed and appellants be acquitted from all the charges. 9. Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned counsel for State has submitted that victim herself had lodged the Dehatinalishi (Ex.P-15) and that is proved by the Police Officer R.K. Baghel (PW-13) wherein it is stated that the incident took place in the residence that was in the control of appellants and due to his family pressure, statement recorded by the Nayab Tahsildar (PW-7) in which she has stated that the quarrel had taken place and she was burned due to her own fault and the appellants and their family members were looking after her by providing her treatment, hence, she changed her version, therefore, no indulgence is required in this case and appeal be dismissed. 10. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 11. Deceased was the wife of appellant No.1 Krishna and appellant No.2 Deepak is the brother-in-law of the deceased and as per statement of Gulabchand Prajapati (PW-7), victim was married to appellant No.1 Krishna 5 to 6 years prior to the date of incident but to prove the exact date of marriage, nothing has been brought on record. 12. On the point of death, as stated by Dr. Deependra Sallame (PW-12) on 13.12.2016, the deceased was admitted by Constable No.252 Rajendra of Police Station-Kotwali, Chhindwara for examination. On examination he found that the injured Lata Bai wife of appellant No.1 Krishna, got the burn injury from superficial to deep burn in the both thighs, both hands, neck, front chest and stomach. She was burned 50%. She was admitted in the burn ward. Dr. Mohd. Jafar Iqbal (PW-11) has submitted that on 21.12.2016 he was posted as a Medical Officer in Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Mayo Hospital, Nagpur. He conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Lata Bai wife of appellant No.1 Krishna Prajapati and found that she got the burn injuries on the face, neck, chest, stomach, back portion of the chest and stomach, right hand, left hand, right leg and left leg and total 47% body was burn and the deceased died due to infection. He has exhibited the autopsy report Ex.P-30. 13. He has exhibited the autopsy report Ex.P-30. 13. Furthermore, from the statement of Vijay R. Nikose (PW-14) who is the Police Officer who prepared the inquest report on 21.12.2016 in Mayo Hospital, Nagpur and the statement of other co-accused persons. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased suffered the burn injury on 13.12.2016 and died on 21.12.2016 due to complication in the burn injury. Thus, it is clear that the deceased died due to burn injury in unnatural circumstances. 14. Looking to the role and presumptions regarding the offence. From the statement of witnesses namely Tularam Prajapati (PW-1), Rakesh Daheria (PW-2), Kishanlal (PW-9) and from the spot map, it is clear that the victim suffered the burn injury by the kerosene oil in the temporary residence/hut in the brickkiln of Tularam Prajapati (PW-1) and appellant No.1 Krishna was present on the spot. There is no eye witness of the incident and other witnesses have stated that when they reached on the spot, they found that the victim was in the burn condition and Tularam Prajapati (PW- 1) along with appellant No.1 Krishna brought the victim/deceased on his motorcycle to the District Hospital Chhindwara where she was admitted. Tularam Prajapati (PW-1) has also stated that when they were admitting the victim in the hospital, she has stated that she suffered the burn injury due to sudden flair up of kerosene lamp. 15. On the point of demand of dowry. Deceased/victim in Ex.P-15 has stated that the both the appellants were present on the spot and appellant No.1 Krishna was demanding Rs.1 lakh and when she expressed her inability, both the appellants stated that it will be better to her that she went to her parental home and appellant No.1 Krishna will marry with another woman and on being harassed by this conduct, she poured the kerosene oil on her and appellant No.1 Krishna lit the matchstick and set her into fire and when she cried for help, appellant No.2 Deepak ran away from there and her husband appellant No.1 Krishna along with the help of Tularam Prajapati (PW-1) brought her to the hospital. 16. In the dying declaration (Ex.P-8) that was recorded by Ram Krishna Sahu, Nayab Tahsildar (PW-5), the deceased has stated that her husband was in habit of consuming alcohol and on that reason dispute took place and she got burn by fire by own fault. 16. In the dying declaration (Ex.P-8) that was recorded by Ram Krishna Sahu, Nayab Tahsildar (PW-5), the deceased has stated that her husband was in habit of consuming alcohol and on that reason dispute took place and she got burn by fire by own fault. She has also stated that her husband appellant No.1 Krishna extinguished the fire by putting blanket over her. In the statement, she has stated that her marriage was solemnized 6 years prior to the incident. 17. On the point of demand dowry, the victim's father Gulabchand Prajapati (PW-7) has stated that after marriage her daughter was living happily with the appellant No.1 Krishna. After that the appellant No.1 was demanding Rs.1 lakh and on that was harassing the deceased and it is also stated that he requested the appellant No.1 that they are not in such status that they can pay Rs.1 lakh but appellant No.1 continued the harassment. When this witness was cross-examined, in para No.8, he has admitted that before this incident, appellant No.1 Krishna along with her daughter was going to work as labourer to Chhindwara and other out stations. At the time of incident, appellant No.1 and his daughter were working in Brickkiln of Tularam Prajapathi (PW-1). 18. This witness has also admitted in the cross examination that after the marriage and before the death of deceased, no case was registered by this witness or his daughter regarding cruelty meted to deceased and in para No.12 he has stated that he had paid the money to his son-in-law/appellant No.1, one time when the appellant's son got injured in the accident and second time he had paid Rs.12,000/- for compromise in that case and has also admitted that on the two occasions, he had paid the amount only to help the appellant No.1. 19. 19. Thus, the theory that the appellants before the date of incident, were demanding Rs.1 lakh as dowry, cannot be believed as the marriage was solemnized 5 to 6 years prior from the date of incident and appellant No.1 and victim got two issues from their wedlock and earlier her father had given money for two times when the appellant was in the need as one time, when son of appellant No.1 got the injuries in an accident and one time for compromise in the case of accident and during lifetime of deceased/victim, she never lodged any FIR or complaint to the competent authorities that the appellant no.1 was harassing her for demand of dowry. 20. Furthermore, the principle laid down in the case of Appasaheb & another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 and the subsequent pronouncement of Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 and Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 16 SCC 721 , no nexus of the death is found with the death as the demand, cruelty and death must be proved in a chain. 21. The dehatinalishi (Ex.P-15) is in the form of dying declaration and dying declaration (Ex.P-8), there is inconsistency in both the statements, as in Ex.P-15, she has stated that she herself poured the kerosene and her husband put the fire and thus she got the burn and in Ex.P-8 she has stated that her husband was consuming alcohol and on that quarrel took place and she got fire by her own mistake, thus more than one reasons of the quarrel have been brought on record by the deceased herself. In one statement, the appellant No.1 along with his brother appellant No. 2 was involved in the crime whereas in the Ex.P-8 the appellants are completely exonerated from the offence. 22. On this point, the spot map is also relevant whether things found in the spot, support the innocence of the appellants or incriminate the appellants in the offence. In one statement, the appellant No.1 along with his brother appellant No. 2 was involved in the crime whereas in the Ex.P-8 the appellants are completely exonerated from the offence. 22. On this point, the spot map is also relevant whether things found in the spot, support the innocence of the appellants or incriminate the appellants in the offence. P.L. Manotia (PW-16) who is the Senior Scientific Officer in FSL, Sagar had visited the spot on 16.12.2016 and on inspection he found that a house situated in the field near Gangiwada Mokshdham in which there were four parts, in one part, there was a room that was locked from outside, one lock wearing the seal of SHO, P.S. Dehat, Chhindwara whose key was having possession of the concerned Police Officer and another lock was of Tularam Prajapati (PW-1). When he visited the spot, he found general smell of kerosene oil. The measurement of room was 11.4 ft x 9.5 ft and on one place brick's chulha was found where in a pot boiled rice was found and in another pot, cooked chicken/vegetables were found. 250 ml kerosene in a plastic bottle was found. A matchstick having 26 matches and one piece of broken match stick was found. A chimney of glass bottle of 90 ml was found and on the cap of the bottle there was a cotton wick and smell of kerosene was coming from that bottle. On the spot, some partially burn hairs, yellow pink and blue colour printed saree, petticoat, blouse and bra were also found and in another place a folded mattress and quilt were found. A part of the quilt was partially burn and some pieces of broken bangles were found. 23. Thus it is also fixed that the incident took place in the room that was temporarily provided to the appellants and deceased. The incident where it took place, except open chimney that was made in a bottle of McDowell No.1 drink, was found in the open condition and in the cap there was a cotton wick and thus as make shift arrangement in the bottle of 90 ml, kerosene was filled and by making hole on the cap, a cotton wick was inserted and by that lamp was made as there was no light in the room. There was no mark of struggle and no other articles were damaged except the cloths of the victim. 24. From the record, it is also clear that just after the incident, appellant No.1-Krishna along with Tularam Prajapati (PW-1) brought the victim immediately to the hospital where she was admitted and her parents reached on the hospital on the same night and in one place the statement recorded by the police, she has stated that due to demand of dowry, she was harassed and she herself put the kerosene and appellant No.1 Krishna put the fire by matchstick and on that second accused ran away from the spot. In other statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the same circumstances, in one place she has stated that she has suffered the injury accidentally and got the burn injury when the lamp fell on her and in other place she has stated on the same day that there was a quarrel as the appellant was consuming alcohol and by her own fault, she suffered the injury, thus, one dying declaration completely exonerated the appellants and in the first dying declaration (Ex.P-15) she has stated that she herself poured the kerosene on her and her husband by putting the matchstick set her on fire and in the second she has stated that by accidentally, she got the burn injury, thus the witness i.e. father of the victim cannot be relied on as it is not established that the appellant was harassing the victim for demand of dowry. 25. From the spot map, and things recovered from the spot, it is clear that on the time of make shift of kerosene lamp, was found open and in that light the incident took place and partial statement of the deceased is reliable that she herself poured the kerosene on her and it is also possible that she herself put the fire as her husband himself saved her and accompanied her to the hospital, if any how, he was involved in the case, he could have absconded and there is no other reliable evidence by which, it can be inferred that both the appellants were involved in setting the fire to the deceased. 26. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants or anyone of them, have committed the murder of the victim by setting her on fire. 27. 26. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants or anyone of them, have committed the murder of the victim by setting her on fire. 27. The prosecution has also failed that the appellants being the husband and the brother-in-law of the deceased, were constantly harassing her to fulfill the demand of dowry and cruelty had committed, as a result, the victim has committed suicide or unnatural death has occurred and thus prosecution under Section 113 B of Evidence Act is not attracted in the case, thus no case of cruelty is also proved. Giving the benefit of doubt, the appeal be allowed. 28. Accordingly, appellant No.1 convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and appellant No.2 convicted for the offence punishable for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, are acquitted from all the charges. Consequently the sentence imposed by the trial Court is quashed. 29. Appellant No.1 Krishna @ Kinna is in custody, therefore, he be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 30. Bail bonds and surety bonds of appellant No.2 Deepak are discharged. 31. The case property be disposed of as per the order of trial Court. 32. With the copy of judgment, the record of the Trial Court be returned back.