IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of extraordinary circumstances leading to suicide and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of abetment.

JUDGMENT :

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

Heard.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/12/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 293/2000, whereby the learned Sessions Judgehas convicted the appellants under Sections 306 & 498-A of the IPC, however, they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on or before 29-5-2000, in village Silihidih, Shyamabai (hereinafter ‘the Deceased’) who was the married wife of accused Gautam and daughter-in-law of Chintaram and Daran and has 2 children, consumed some poisonous substance. After consuming the poison, she was admitted to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari for treatment, where she died on 29-5-2000, whose Merg intimation was given. In Merg inquiry, it was found that before her death, the accused persons used to harass the Deceased and had left her to her maternal house in connection with which the meeting was held. Distressed and motivated by the torture done to the deceased by the appellants, the deceased committed suicide by drinking poison.

3. During the investigation, the death Panchnama of the deceased was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the report was received. Merg intimation was registered. Before the witnesses, two bottles viscera of the deceased from the hospital was seized. One plastic box containing pesticides was also seized from the field of one Kewat. Spot map was prepared. Subsequently, FIR was registered and statement of Parasram Yadav was recorded. The appellants were arrested. The seized articles during investigation were sent for FSL examination at Sagar.

4. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses i.e. Shriram (PW1), Brijlal (PW2), Hemlal (PW3), Sonuram (PW4), Raghunath (PW5), Laltu (PW6), Dr. A. Rashid (PW7), Lalji Shukla (PW8) & Devendra Kumar Dewangan (PW9) in its support. Statements of the appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27/12/2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. The learned trial Court did not pay heed to rely upon the evidence given by Domar Singh Yadav (DW1) and Tijuram (DW2) and passed the impugned judgment. Reliance has been placed in the matters of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 and Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 5 SCC 371. He submits that there is delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR, therefore, the convictions awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

7. Per contra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, would support the impugned judgment.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. Shriram (PW1) has deposed in his statement that the marriage between the Deceased and the appellant Gautam was solemnized 7 years ago. She was residing with her husband. He deposed that the appellants after beating the Deceased had sent her at Dadesar. He deposed that the Deceased had told him that her husband used to quarrel with her on the matter that she did not work properly. She also stated