Bhagwati Bai vs State of M. P. - 2007 Supreme(MP) 674

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(MP) 674

2008(1) JLJ 346
Subhash Samvatsar and Ku. Sheela Khanna, JJ.
Bhagwati Bai (Smt.) and another v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 1999 (Gwalior) : against judgment of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, passed in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 1995;
Decided on 12.7.2007.

Advocates:
A.K. Barua with Vinay Sharma for appellants;
M.P.S. Bhadoriya, Public Prosecutor, for State.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304B and 498A—Dowry death—Conviction of appellants, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased—Appeal—Evidence to show that appellant father-in-law had made a demand of Rs. 40,000 to purchase two seater vehicle for his son after one and half or two years of marriage of deceased—Demand could not be termed as dowry demand as not relating to the marriage of deceased—Conviction under Section 304B IPC could not be sustained—Evidence of father, mother and brother of deceased however proved that deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of that demand and its non-fulfilment—Appellant, father-in-law of deceased was liable to be convicted under Section 498A IPC—Cruel treatment and harassment to deceased led her to commit suicide within three years of her marriage—Appellant was guilty for abetting offence of suicide by deceased—Since ingredients of offence under Section 306, IPC were proved, accused could be convicted even in absence of specific charge framed—Sentence of eight years imprisonment under Section 306, IPC awarded—No consistent and convincing evidence of cruelty and harassment against accused mother-in-law and she was entitled to acquittal.
       Held: From the evidence, it is clear that the demand of Rs. 40,000 was made by appellant Rajaram to purchase two-seater for his son after one and a half or two years of marriage of the deceased.
       The Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb & another v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007(1) Crimes110 has held that the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. It is further held that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. In this case also if the demand of Rs. 40,000 has been made by appellant Rajaram after one and half or two years of marriage to purchase two-seater for his son then this demand cannot be said to be a demand relating to the marriage of the deceased and cannot be termed as dowry demand. Thus, it is not proved that the demand subjected to cruelty by the appellants for demand of dowry and, therefore, offence under Section 304B of IPC is not proved and conviction under Section 304B of IPC is not sustainable in laws. (Paras 13 & 14)
       Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by appellant Rajaram to fulfill unlawful demand of Rs. 40,000 to purchase two-seater and thus he committed offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and that the cruel treatment and harassment to the deceased led her to commit suicide and therefore, appellant Rajaram is guilty for abetting the commission of offence of suicide by the deceased, which is punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
        It is true that in this case charge under Section 306, IPC was not framed by the trial court and the charges framed against appellant Rajaram were under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC. But all the facts and ingredients constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC are found to have been mentioned in the statement of charges framed under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and from the cross-examination on behalf of the appellants also it is clear that appellants were well aware that allegations of cruelty to the deceased which led her to commit suicide is against the appellants, therefore, appellant Rajaram can be convicted under Section 306 of IPC also and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him. (Paras 15 & 16)
       Result: Appeal allowed partly.

ORDER

Sheela Khanna, J. -- 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 22.10.1999 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No.364/1995, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted under section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each failing which the appellants arc further directed to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Appellant Rajaram is father-in-law and appellant Bhagwatibai is mother-in-law of the deceased Sunita. Complainant Chotelal (PW2) is father, Gopi (PW1) is mother and Sohansingh (PW3) is Uncle of the deceased Sunita. It is not disputed that deceased Sunita died within around three years of her marriage by hanging herself and committed suicide.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 2.7.1995, complainant Chotelal (PW2) lodged a report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Bahodapur to the effect that the marriage of his daughter Sunita (deceased) was solemnized with Umesh (acquitted co-accused) around three years back. After marriage, Sunita gave birth to a baby child. Deceased Sunita was subjected to cruelty by the appellants for demand of dowry. Appellant Rajaram wanted to purchase a two-seater vehicle for his son Umesh and, therefore, he pressurised the deceased to bring Rs.40,000/- from her parents. Appellant Rajaram also threatened the deceased that if she will not bring Rs.40,000/- from her parents, then she will not be permitted to her in-laws house. Complainant Chotelal expressed his inability to give Rs.40,000/- before his son-in-law Umesh and sent his daughter Sunita to her in-laws house. But again the appellants turned the deceased out from their house to bring the said money. Thereafter, Sohansingh (PW3) and son of Dinanath called Umesh and pacified the matter and again sent Sunita with Umesh to her in-laws house.

4. On 2.7.1995, one Harishchandra came to complainant Chotelal and informed him that when he was passing through from in front of the house of Sunita, he saw a huge crowd there and was informed that Sunita has committed suicide. On this information, Chotelal (PW2) reached to the appellants house and saw the deceased Sunita hanging from hook (Kunde) of the roof and had died.

5. On the report (Ex.P-1) of the complainant, marg (Ex.P-10) was registered. Sub-Inspector G.S. Parihar (PW8) reached on the spot and after issuing Safina Form (Ex.P-2), prepared inquest report (Ex.P-4) of the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. Dr. J.N. Soni (PW6) conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He found a contusion over right thigh, a contusion over left thigh, a contusion over right calf and ligature mark situated at the level of upper aspect of thyroid cartilage anteriorly 2 cm wide on right side abrasion was present. These injuries were found antimortem in nature. According to Dr. Soni, the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. He also found the uterus of the deceased enlarged and a female fetus 12 cm long present in the uterine cavity. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After marg inquiry, case was registered against the appellants for commission of offences under sections 498A and 304B of IPC vide first information report (Ex.P12). On 5.7.1995, the husband of the deceased Umesh was arrested. On 19.9.1995, the appellants Rajaram and Bhagwatibai were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-15).

6. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and their son Umesh. After committal of the case, charge under sections 304B and 498A of IPC was framed against the appellants and acquitted co-accused Umesh. Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. The defence of the appellants was that appellant Rajaram is a religious minded man. One Maujiram and Mukesh of the vi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(MP) 674

2008(1) JLJ 346Subhash Samvatsar and Ku. Sheela Khanna, JJ.Bhagwati Bai (Smt.) and another v. State of M.P.Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 1999 (Gwalior) : against judgment of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, passed in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 1995; Decided on 12.7.2007.

2008(1) JLJ 346
Subhash Samvatsar and Ku. Sheela Khanna, JJ.
Bhagwati Bai (Smt.) and another v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 1999 (Gwalior) : against judgment of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, passed in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 1995;
Decided on 12.7.2007.