SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Chh) 155

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.
MADAN SAHU - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2004,
Decided on : 24-7-2012

Advocates appeared:
Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove allegations of cruelty and abetment to suicide under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

Headnote:

Cruelty - Conviction under Section 498A and 306 IPC - [498A, 306] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines 'cruelty' and the elements required to establish the offense. The court also referred to Section 306 IPC and discussed the requirement of proving abetment or instigation to commit suicide. The judgment highlighted the need for conclusive evidence to prove cruelty and abetment, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and abetting her suicide. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had committed severe Marpeet with the deceased, leading to her suicide. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations and that the witnesses were interested parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution did not provide conclusive evidence to establish that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty or abetted her suicide. As a result, the conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

Issues: The key issues revolved around proving the allegations of cruelty and abetment to suicide against the appellant. The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense's arguments regarding the credibility of the witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence to establish the elements of cruelty and abetment under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. It referenced legal provisions and case law to highlight the requirements for proving such offenses.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charges, and the bail bonds were cancelled.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 26-12-2003 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 239/2002. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Madan Sahu has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with direction to run the sentences concurrently :

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 498A of the Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to

Indian Penal Code pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment

of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

1 month.

Under Section 306 of the Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to

Indian Penal Code pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment

of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for 1 month

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :

The appellant was residing in Village Odaragahan. His first wife is Rekhabai. Her being alive, the appellant performed second marriage with Bisahinbai, resident of Village Pachmedi under Chun form. Due to committing Marpeet with Bisahinbai by the appellant, panchayat meetings had been arranged in this regard twice. Bisahinbai had also reported the matter in Police Station Ranchirai. Due to committing severe Marpeet with Bisahinbai by the appellant, she, having told the same to Panchas, went to her maternal house two years before. Thereafter, the appellant performed third marriage with deceased Sukhwantinbai at Gayatri Temple in April, 2001 and brought her home. At the time of marriage of the deceased, her family members had given Loti, Thali, Balti (bucket), Ghadi (watch) etc. to the appellant happily. After their marriage, few days passed happily. Thereafter, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar) etc. said that the deceased came with no wearing. After becoming the deceased pregnant, the appellant said her that he did not want child as he had children from his first wife. After delivery of the child by the deceased, the appellant pressurized her to undergo vasectomy operation. The appellant used to commit Marpeet with the deceased on small things. Having pestered, the deceased left the house of the appellant on 30-3-2002. When, on the occasion of Tija festival, she had come to her maternal house, she had told her mother Agnibai (PW-3) about her being subjected to cruelty by the appellant and her in-laws by committing Marpeet with her. The appellant had gone to his in-laws and told them that the deceased had left his house and had gone away. All of them had searched for the deceased, but she could not be traced. On the next day, i.e., 1-4-2002, Sarpanch Kanti Sahu saw the deceased hanging on a Kahawa Tree in the Khar of Village Karela. She told to Ruprai Patel (PW-8) about the incident. Some people gathered and all they went near the Kahawa Tree. Doman, son of Kaka of the deceased, identified the deceased there. Ruprai Patel (PW-8) lodged Merg Intimation (Ex.P-10) in Police Chowki Ranitarai. Sub-Inspector Embros Kujur (PW -12) reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.P-9) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P-8) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent to Primary Health Centre Patan for post mortem examination vide Ex.P-4. Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW -11) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.P-4A), in which, he found that cause of the death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. After Merg investigation, First Information Report (Ex. P-12) was registered in Police Station Patan.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session at Durg, from where it was received on transfer by 151 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Pusauram Sahu (PW -1) is brother, Sunahre Sahu (PW -2) is father, Agnibai (PW3) is m



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top