Back
2005(2) JLJ 224
A.K. Gohil, J.
Aman Singh v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2003; against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, passed in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 2002; Decided on 14.1.2005.
The appellant lodged a report at the Police Station, Ganj Basoda, that in the night he was sleeping in the room along with his children after taking meals, at 2 O‘clock in the night he heard the voice of his wife, she was shouting. When he came outside, he found his wife ablze. He called his brothers Babulal and Mardan. They extinguished the fire by putting water on her body. She had died. He informed Chowkidar and thereafter informed the incident to the police. .... In the investigation and also from the statements of the witnesses it was found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband. It was found that the appellant used to beat her and was not giving food. It was also alleged that the appellant was not doing any work and regularly used to ask Rambai to bring money from her father. Many a times the demand was fulfilled by the parents of the deceased and money was given. Lastly, 15 days before her death, deceased Rambai went to her father‘s place and asked for money but due to destruction/of the crops her father was not in a position to help her, therefore, the help was denied to her. The prosecution case was that on account of cruelty and maltreatment meted out to Rambai by her husban1, she has committed suicide. [Para 2
Held : Considering ... scope of section 107 of IPC, it is necessary that a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. In this case there is no allegation available on record against the appellant for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. Merely practising cruelty or beating 15 days before her death does not constitute offence or abetment. More so, in this case the accused had not by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was felt with no other option except to commit suicide, in which an instigation may have been inferred. Even by the apex Court in case of Swamy Prahaladdas [1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased‘ ‘to go and die" have not been considered enough to instigate the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC is not liable to be maintained. (1994) 1 SCC 73, 2001(:2) BLJ 113 (SC), 2002(2) JLJ 275 (SC) and 2004(16) AIC 87 (SC) followed. [Para 17
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 498A -- offence under -- accused a patient of epilepsy -- having two minor sons u none to look after them -- sentence of more than two and a half years suffered -- sufficient punishment. [Para 18
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 306 rFkk 107&ifj.kke mn~nhIr djus okyh ;qfDr;qDr lqfuf‘fpr Li"V crk, tkus ;ksX; gksuk vko‘;d gS&dsoy Øwjrk djuk vFkok mldh e`R;q ls 15 fnu iwoZ ihVuk& &vkRegRk djus ds nq"çsj.k dk vijk/k xfBr ugha gksrkA
vihykFkhZ us iqfyl Fkkuk] xat oklksnk esa fjiksVZ nkf[ky dks fd og jkr dks Hkkstu djus ds i‘pkr dejs esa vius cPpksa ds lkFk lks jgk Fkk] jkf= dks 2 cts mlus viuh iRuh dh vkokt lquh] og fpYyk jgh FkhA tc og ckgj vk;k] mlus viuh iRuh dks tyrs gq, ik;kA mlus vius HkkbZ;ksa ckcwyky vkSj enZu dks cqyk;kA mUgksaus ‘kjhj ij ty Mky dj vkx cq>kbZA mldh e`R;q gks xbZ FkhA mlus pkSadhnkj dks lwfpr fd;k] rRi‘pkr iqfyl dks ?kVuk dh bfÙkyk nhA
----vUos"k.k esa rFkk lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ls Hkh Kkr gqvk fd e`rd ds ifr }kjk e`rd ls Øwjrk vkSj larki dk O;ogkj fd;k tk jgk FkkA ik;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ mls ihVrk Fkk rFkk mls Hkkstu ugha nsrk FkkA ;g Hkh vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ dksbZ dk;Z ugha djrk vkSj fu;fer :i ls jkeokbZ dks vius firk ls /ku ykus ds fy, dgrk FkkA vusd ckj e`rd ds ekrk&firk us ek¡x dh iwfrZ dh rFkk /ku fn;k x;kA var esa] viuh e`R;q ls 15 fnu iwoZ e`r jkeckbZ vius firk ds ?kj xbZ rFkk mlus /ku ek¡xk ijarq Qly u"V gks tkus ds dkj.k mldk firk mldh lgk;rk djus dh fLFkfr esa ugha Fkk] vr% mls lgk;rk nsus ls badkj dj fn;k x;kA vfHk;kstu i{kdFku gS fd jkeokbZ ds ifr }kjk mlls dh xbZ Øwjrk vkSj nqO;ogkj ds dkj.k mlus vkRegR;k dh gSA ¼iSjk 2½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 107 dh O;kfIr /;ku esa j[krs gq, vko‘;d gS fd ifj.kke míhIr djus ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr lqfuf‘prrk Li"V crk, tkus ;ksX; gksA bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ ds fo#) vfHkys[k ij bldk dksbZ Hkh vfHkdFku miyC/k ugha gS fd mlus e`rd dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, nq"çsfjr fd;kA dsoy Øwjrk djus vFkok mldh e`R;q 15 fnu iwoZ ihVus ls nq"çsj.k dk vijk/k xfBr ugha gksrkA rc vkSj Hkh tc bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr us vius ÑR; ;k yksi ls ;k fujarj vkpj.k ls ,slh ifjfLFkfr;k¡ l`ftr ugha dh Fkh fd e`rd ds ikl vkRegR;k djus ds vfrfjDr dksbZ Hkh fodYi ‘ks"k ugha Fkk] ftlls mdlkgV dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldsA mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh Lokeh çgyknnkl ¿1995 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 943À ds ekeys esa vfHk;qDr }kjk e`rd ls dgs x, dsoy ‘‘kCn] ^^tk] ej tk**] e`rd dks mdlkus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha le>s x, gSaA vr% naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 306 ds v/khu vihykFkhZ dks nks"kflf) dk;e j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA ¼1994½ 1 ,l lh lh 73] 2001¼2½ ch ,y ts 113 ¼mPpre U;k-½] 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 275 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 2004 ¼16½ , vkb lh 87 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 498d& ds v/khu vijk/k&vfHkqDr fejxh dk jksxh&nks vçkIro; iq=&mudh ns[kHkky djus okyk dksbZ ugha&<kbZ o"kZ ls vf/kd dk naMkns"k Hkksxk&ikZIr naMA ¼iSjk 18½
1. Appellant has filed this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against his conviction under section 306 and under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years' RI and three years' RI respectively and fine of Rs. 100/- under each section and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI respectively, by judgment dated 5.5.2003 in Sessions Trial No. 180/2002 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, district Vidisha.
2. The appellant is the husband of deceased Rambai. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place in the intervening night of 24th and 25th of June, 2002 at about 2 a.m. and at about 17.30 hours (5.30 p.m.) the appellant lodged a report at the Police Station, Ganj Basoda, that in the night he was sleeping in the room along with his children after taking meals, at 2 O'clock in the night he heard the voice of his wife, she was shouting. When he came outside, he found his wife ablze. He called his brothers Babulal and Mardan. They extinguished the fire by putting water on her body. She had died. He informed Chowkidar and thereafter informed the incident to the police. On the basis of merg intimation, Dehati Nalishi was recorded. Police reached at the spot and investigated the matter. Dead body was referred for post mortem. During investigation, statements of father Bhujjilal, mother Ram Kunwar, sister Sonabai, Babulal brother of the appellant and Atarbai wife of Babulal were recorded. In the investigation and also from the statements of the witnesses it was found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband. It was found that the appellant used to beat her and was not giving food. It was also alleged that the appellant was not doing any work and regularly used to ask Rambai to bring money from her father. Many a times the demand was fulfilled by the parents of the deceased and money was given. Lastly, 15 days before her death, deceased Rambai went to her father's place and asked for money but due to destruction of the crops her father was not in a position to help her, therefore, the help was denied to her. The prosecution case was that on account of cruelty and malueatment meted out to Rambai by her husband, she has committed suicide. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. During trial charge was framed under section 306, IPC and in alternate, for the offence punishable under section 302 and also for the offence punishable under section 498A, IPC.
3. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and has taken the defence that he is a patient of epilepsy and, therefore, Rambai was denying to live with him. On the date of incident he was sleeping in his room, Rambai came out from the room, closed the doors from outside and has committed suicide.
4. After considering the prosecution evidence, trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under section 302, IPC beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant from the aforesaid charge but found that the prosecution has proved the charges under sections 306 and 498A of IPC, and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Against which the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. I have heard Shri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent State and perused the evidence on record.
6. In the trial, prosecution examined PW 1 Bhuji, who is the father of the deceased, PW 2 Sonabai, elder sister of the deceased, PW 8 Ramkunwar Bai, who is the mother of the deceased. PW 5 Babulal, brother of the appellant, PW 6 Atarbai, wife of Babulal and PW 9, Brijesh Kushwaha, nephew of the appellant, have not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile. PW 1 Bhujjilal, PW 2 Sonabai and PW 8 Ramkunwarbai have deposed that after the marriage appellant was continuously harassing the deceased. He was always compelling her to go to her parents and to demand for the money. They
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
