Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 270 (MP)

Keshav Yadav v. State of M. P.

2025-04-09

ANURADHA SHUKLA

body2025
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by First Additional sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Sessions Trial No.12/1998 on 26.10.1998, this appeal was preferred by appellant Keshaw Yadav (A1) and Chhanga Yadav (A2) to challenge their conviction under section 304 Part II read with section 34 IPC and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years. Both the appellants were granted the benefit of suspension of sentence and bail, under order dated 15.12.1998 by this Court but later they defaulted appearance, hence bailable warrants were issued against them vide order dated 12.7.2023. In the service report of bailable warrant of arrest issued against Keshaw Yadav (A1), Police Station, Amlai, district Shahdol, submitted the information regarding his death, therefore in the absence of any application for substitution of legal representatives, this criminal appeal was declared to have been abated qua Keshaw Yadav (A1) and now this criminal appeal is being decided qua Chhanga Yadav (A2) only. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of this criminal appeal are that Chhanga Yadav was the brother-in-law of deceased Rambha Yadav who was married to Keshaw Yadav, the deceased-appellant, and ever since her marriage she was being harassed physically and mentally by her mother-in-law Smt. Ramrati, her husband Keshaw and her brother -in-law Chhanga in relation to dowry which was being demanded by these persons; it was claimed that on many occasions Rambha Yadav was beaten brutally, given electric currents, caused burn injuries and also shaved by these persons; it is further claimed that she used to be taken to her parental house for recovery and after return to matrimonial house, she used to be again given similar treatment; it was also claimed that appellant Chhanga Yadav used to sexually harass her; according to FIR, many complaints were made by Rambha during her lifetime but police did not take any action against her in-laws. 3. According to FIR, on 17.5.1997, Rambha was brutally beaten by her mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law and on account of this brutality she sustained fatal wounds and succumbed to her injury; the matter was reported by an independent person, namely Anup Mukherji alias Anup, by submitting a written complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anuppur, on 17.5.1997 upon which FIR was registered in Police Station, Anuppur, district Shahdol, at Crime No.78/1997 for the offence of section 304-B read with section 34 IPC and the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed and upon conclusion of trial the Court below acquitted Smt. Ramrati, the mother-in-law of deceased, and recording the acquittal of husband Keshaw Yadav and brother-in-law Chhanga Yadav for the offence of section 304-B IPC, alternatively sections 302 (302/34) and 498-A IPC, convicted them for the offence of section 304 Part II read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. 4. Arguing this appeal on behalf of Chhanga Yadav (A2), it is submitted that the impugned judgment is against the facts of the case and also the settled principles of law; appellant was innocent and did not cause any injury to the victim; the learned trial Judge completely ignored material contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of material witnesses; it was ignored that the victim was anemic and there was no clear medical opinion that she died on account of injuries found on her person; the testimony of defence witness (D.W.1) was totally ignored; despite the failure of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, the trial Court convicted the appellant. A request has, therefore, been made to allow this appeal and setting aside the conviction as well as sentence, appellant Chhanga Yadav be acquitted. 5. Counsel for appellant Chhanga Yadav (A2) and also the counsel for State have been heard on the merits of this criminal appeal and the record has been perused. 6. From the record of trial Court, it is evident that prosecution has examined complainant Anup Mukherji alias Anup (P.W.2), Santosh (P.W.3), Munnibai (P.W.4), Kamlabai (P.W.5) and Leelabai (P.W.6) as eyewitnesses. Anup is the neighbour of appellant while rest of the aforesaid witnesses are not only neighbours but also close relatives of appellant. The other witnesses examined on facts are Dwarka Prasad (P.W.8), who is the father of deceased, and Umashankar (P.W.9), the cousin of deceased. From the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that none of them has claimed to have seen the incident personally. 7. Anup Mukherji alias Anup (P.W.2) in para 5 of his examination-in-chief claims that he was informed about the incident by the residents of locality in the morning of 17.5.1997. Santosh (P.W.3) claims that he had seen the appellant Chhanga Yadav assaulting Rambha Yadav a week prior to her death and he does not claim that the incident of 17.5.1997 was personally witnessed by him. Santosh (P.W.3) claims that he had seen the appellant Chhanga Yadav assaulting Rambha Yadav a week prior to her death and he does not claim that the incident of 17.5.1997 was personally witnessed by him. Munnibai (P.W.4) too makes no claim that she was present at the time of incident and admits in para 2 of her examination-inchief that she was informed about the death of Rambha Yadav on next day. After being declared hostile, she has admitted in para 4 that on 16.5.1997 at around 11:00 a.m. Rambha was beaten by Keshaw and Chhanga and she disclosed this fact to the police in her police statement but FIR suggests that the date of incident was 17.5.1997 and not 16.5.1997. Kamlabai (P.W.5) claims that she was told about this beating by Leelabai, and she herself didn’t go to the house of Rambha; further, when appellant Keshaw had come to her house requesting to visit his place and examine Rambha, she refused to go along with him. She has given contradictory statements on being declared hostile by the prosecution and in answer to leading questions, but material inconsistency in her statements discards her veracity and does not permit to rely upon any part of her testimony. 8. The last eyewitness examined by prosecution is Leelabai (P.W.6) who claims that in the night of 16.5.1997 at around 9:30 p.m. she heard the screams of Rambha Yadav, she called her neighbour Kamlabai and then they both saw the incident from the courtyard of Leelabai in which accused Chhanga, his brother Keshaw and mother - all were physically assaulting Rambha. She has been cross-examined on the fact about omissions in her police statements. Though said police statement has not been marked in evidence, but there is definitely an omission of the fact of watching the incident from the courtyard. It is relevant to mention here that in spot-map, the house of Rambha is marked as “A”, to its left is the house of Durga Yadav marked as “B” and to its right is the dilapidated house of Ramdas Yadav marked as “C”. Ahead of the house of Ramdas Yadav is the house of this witness Leelabai which is marked by sign “D”. Ahead of the house of Ramdas Yadav is the house of this witness Leelabai which is marked by sign “D”. This spot-map does not reveal that the place of incident could have been seen from the courtyard of Leelabai as the house of Ramdas Yadav, though dilapidated, lies in between the two locations. This makes witness Leelabai (P.W.6) too unreliable on the point that accused Chhanga was responsible for the injuries sustained by Rambha. 9. Dr. Arjun Singh (P.W.7) had conducted the post-mortem of Rambha on 17.5.1997 but according to his post-mortem report, marked as Ex.P-6, and also from his Court testimony it is revealed that though number of injuries were found on the person of deceased, none of these injuries was of the nature which in natural course would be sufficient to cause her death and in answer to a query made by the court, this witness clarified that the cause of death could not be known despite the post-mortem examination. 10. The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge of sections 304-B, 302 and 498-A IPC. According to the trial Court, it was simply a case where Rambha was physically assaulted by accused and his deceased-brother and on account of this physical assault Rambha died. This finding could possibly be established through direct or circumstantial evidence and earlier conduct or behaviour of accused has no significance in establishing the accusation. In the light of this proposition, the testimony of Dwarka Prasad (P.W.8), the father of deceased, has no relevance whose testimony revolves around the facts of demand of dowry, the cruelty earlier committed to the deceased and her strained relationship with her husband Keshaw. Even otherwise, this witness has not stated a single fact against accused Chhanga to establish that he was involved in any kind of cruelty with the deceased even on earlier occasions. 11. The statements of Umashankar (P.W.9) reveal that he is confused about the relationship of accused Chhanga with Rambha. He is not clear whether Rambha was married to Chhanga or Keshaw. His examination-in-chief suggests that Rambha was being cruelly treated by her husband and no aspersions were cast during this testimony upon the brother-in-law of Rambha. Therefore, the statements of this witness are also not found to be of any incriminating nature as against accused Chhanga. 12. He is not clear whether Rambha was married to Chhanga or Keshaw. His examination-in-chief suggests that Rambha was being cruelly treated by her husband and no aspersions were cast during this testimony upon the brother-in-law of Rambha. Therefore, the statements of this witness are also not found to be of any incriminating nature as against accused Chhanga. 12. From the statements of alleged eyewitnesses, namely Anup Mukherji, Santosh, Munnibai, Kamlabai and Leelabai, it is further revealed that they all were involved in different kinds of disputes with accused Chhanga and his family. Their inimical relationship with accused Chhanga and his family has direct reflection on their credibility. Even otherwise, their statements have not been found straightforward and trustworthy, therefore it is held that prosecution has not been able to establish its case either through direct testimony or from circumstantial evidence that accused Chhanga had physically assaulted deceased Rambha and caused her injuries resulting into her death. 13. On the basis of foregoing discussion, accused Chhanga Yadav (appellant No.2) is acquitted of the charge of section 304 Part II IPC and the appeal is allowed. He is already released on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged with immediate effects. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.