Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
VINOD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondent
Criminal A. No. 1358 of 1997
Decided on : 23-07-2012
306 - Indian Penal Code - Section 306, Section 107 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and emphasized the absence of abetment in the case, leading to the acquittal of the accused/appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, wife of the appellant, set herself ablaze in her matrimonial house and subsequently died. The appellant was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code based on allegations of cruelty and abetment to suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration of the deceased did not implicate the accused/appellant and only made allegations against the acquitted accused persons. It concluded that the ingredients of 'abetment' were absent in the case, leading to the acquittal of the accused/appellant.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused/appellant could be convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code based on the evidence of cruelty and abetment to suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of abetment in the dying declaration of the deceased and the lack of evidence implicating the accused/appellant in the commission of the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant was set aside. The accused/appellant was acquitted of the charges.
PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.6.1997 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S.T. No. 153/96 convicting the accused/appellant u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In the present case, deceased is Rameshwari, wife of appellant and their marriage was solemnized two years prior to the date of incident i.e. 8.8.1995. It is alleged that on 8.8.1995 deceased set herself a blazed in her matrimonial house after pouring kerosene oil on her. She was immediately shifted to hospital and from there memo Ex. P/3 was sent to concerned police station on the same day. Dying declaration of the deceased Ex. P-5 was recorded on 8.8.1995 by Additional Tahsildar Arjun Singh Sisodiya (PW-18). Deceased died on 9.8.1995, post mortem was performed on the same day vide Ex. P-4 by Dr. Arvind Sriukla (PW-7). Merge intimation Ex. P-20 was recorded on 9.8.1995 whereas Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-7 was recorded on 12.8.1995. Based on the Dehati Nalishi and merge inquiry on 13.8.1995, FIR (Ex. P-8) was registered against the accused/appellant and acquitted accused persons namely Sahant Singh and Smt. Ramkali under Sections 306/34, IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the three accused persons u/s 306/34, IPC on 4.11.1995 and charges were also framed under the aforesaid section.
2. So as to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons were also recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. One defence witness namely Nandu Singh has also been examined.
3. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the Trial Court has acquitted the other co-accused persons namely Sahant Singh and Smt. Ram Kali (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased) for the said offence but has convicted the present appellant and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
4. Contention of Mr. Kochar, Counsel for the appellant is that even if the entire case of prosecution is taken as it is, the appellant cannot be convicted u/s 306, IPC because the basic ingredients of Section 306, IPC in particular, Section 107, IPC are completely missing. He submits that in the dying declaration, the deceased has not made any allegation against the appellant and allegation was against her mother-in-law and father-in-law who have already been acquitted by the Court below. He submits that the case of the appellant is better than the case of two acquitted accused persons but yet he has been convicted.
5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava that Lal Singh (PW-1) father of the deceased, Krishna Devi (PW-3) mother of the deceased, Savitri Bai (PW-4) sister of the deceased and Jayanti Bai (PW-5) have categorically stated as to in what manner the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellant. He submits that the cruelty was to the extent where the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. He further submits that the dying declaration is not in favour of the accused/appellant.
6. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Lai Singh (PW-1) father of the deceased has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile however in cross-examination, he has made allegation against the accused/appellant for beating the deceased. He has stated that demand of colour TV and motorcycle was made from the deceased. He has further stated that when after the incident he met the deceased in the hospital she informed him that all the accused persons had taken his life. Ahiran Singh (PW-2) is a witness of inquest notice Ex. P-1 and inquest Ex. P-2 has not stated anyth
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
