Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 12
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Gangele and Sushil Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Shambhudayal and another v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No.13 and 300 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No.711 of 2004 (Gwalior) : against the common judgment dated 20.12.1999, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind
in S.T. No.63/1999; Decided on 6.1.2015
Rajesh Shukla with Anand Purohit for appellants;
Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.302 -- offence under -- prosecution failed to prove presence of appellants in house at the time of death of deceased -- merely because dead body of deceased found in house of appellants -- itself not a sufficient ground to convict -- no direct evidence against appellants -- trial Court rightly acquitted.
Held : It is proved that at the time of death of deceased Manjesh Kumari appellants-accused were not present in the house. However, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that appellants-accused were present, at the time of death of the deceased, in the house, but prosecution failed to prove the same. In the circumstances, merely because the dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of appellants/accused itself is not a sufficient ground to convict the appellants for an offence punishable under section 302 for causing the death of the deceased, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants-accused of this charge. Hence, Criminal Appeal No.300/00 fails and is hereby dismissed.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.304B -- offence under -- deceased found dead in her matrimonial house -- soon before her death -- no cogent evidence for subjecting cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry -- cannot be held guilty for causing dowry death -- trial Court rightly acquitted appellants -- judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside.
Held : There is no cogent evidence against the appellants-accused that they subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry soon before her death. Hence, accused-appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence of causing dowry death of deceased Manjesh, and therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants-accused of the charge under section 304B of IPC and the judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside. (2009)17 SCC 243 and (2001)8 SCC 633 discussed. (2011)12 SCC 408 and 2002 SCC (Cri.) 48 followed.
(3)Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.397 and 401 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.304B, 498A and 302 -- revision before High Court -- not a single witness stated about harassment and cruel treatment given to deceased -- mother-in-law of deceased not living in house with appellants -- not present at the time of incident -- cannot be held guilty for committing cruelty and dowry death -- merely because another view is possible judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside.
Held : Learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence, found that prosecution has failed to adduce evidence with regard to harassment given to the deceased. Learned trial Court in para 21 of the judgment observed that not a single witness stated about the harassment and cruel treatment given to the deceased .... The trial Court also found that Vidyadevi was not living with Ashok and Manjesh Kumari and even she was not present in village Kheria at the time of incident, hence, she cannot be held guilty for committing cruelty and dowry death of deceased.
Learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and judgment of the trial Court is impeccable and does not call for any interference. Sound and valid reasons have been given for the judgment of acquittal. Merely because another view is possible, the judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside. (2012)6 SCC 589 followed.
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.498A -- offence under -- after minute scrutiny of statement of mother of deceased -- supported by other prosecution witnesses -- sufficient material found available on record -- demand of dowry proved -- trial Court rightly convicted appellants -- no reason to interfere with finding of conviction -- conviction of appellants confirmed -- both appeals are dismissed.
Held : After minute scrutiny of the statement of Kamla (PW5), mother of the deceased, which is also supported by the other prosecution witnesses, it is found that there is sufficient material available on the record to prove the demand of motorcycle in dowry. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants-accused under section 498A of the Code of 1860.
We have no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction under section 498A of the Code of 1860. We hereby confirm the conviction of the appellants under section 498A of the Code of 1860. 1995 Cr.LJ 174 discussed. 1997(1) Crimes 245 (SC) followed.
¼1½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 && ds v/khu vijk/k && vfHk;kstu e`rdk dh e`R;q ds le; vihykFkhZx.k dh ?kj esa mifLFkfr lkfcr djus es vlQy && ek= e`rdk dk e`r ‘kjhj vihykFkhZx.k ds ?kj esa ik;k tkuk && fl)nks”k djus ds fy, Lo;a ,d i;kZIr vk/kkj ugha && vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) izR;{k lk{; ugha && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Bhd&gh nks”keqDr fd;kA
¼1½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g lkfcr gS fd e`rdk eats’k dqekjh dh e`R;q ds le; vihykFkhZx.k&vfHkqDr ?kj esa mifLFkr ugha FksA fQj Hkh vfHk;kstu dk ;g lkfcr djus dk drZO; Fkk fd vihykFkhZx.k&vfHkqDr e`rdk dh e`R;q ds le; ?kj esa mifLFkr Fks ysfdu vfHk;kstu bls lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa es] ek= e`rdk dk e`r ‘kjhj vihykFkhZx.k ds ?kj esa ik;k tkuk e`frdk dh e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, /kkjk 302 ds v/khu naM+uh; vijk/k ds fy, vihykFkhZx.k dks fl)nks”k djus ds fy, Loa; ,d i;kZIr vk/kkj ugh gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZx.k&vfHkqDr dks bl vkjksi ls Bhd&gh nks”keqDr fd;kA vr% nkafM+d vihy Ø-300@00 vlQy rFkk ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
¼2½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 &/kkjk 304[k && ds v/khu vijk/k && e`rdk vius naifŸk x`g esa e`r ikbZ xbZ && e`R;q ds Bhd igys && ngst dh ek¡x ds fy, Øwjrk ;k mRihM+u ds v/;/khu j[kus dh dksbZ rdZiw.kZ lk{; ugha && ngst e`R;q ds fy, nks”kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZx.k dks Bhd&gh nks”keqDr fd;k && nks”keqfDr dk fu.kZ; vikLr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vihykFkhZx.k&vfHkqDr ds fo:) dksbZ rdZiw.kZ lk{; ugh fd mUgksusa e`rdk dks mldh e`R;q ds Bhd igys ngst dh ek¡x ds fy, Øwjrk ;k mRihM+u ds v/;/khu j[kkA vr% vihykFkhZx.k&vfHkqDr e`rdk eats’k dh ngst e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vijk/k ds fy, nks”kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk RkFkk] blfy,] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Hkk-na-l- dh /kkjk 304[k ds v/khu vkjksi ls Bhd gh nks”keqDr fd;k rFkk nks”keqfDr dk fu.kZ; vikLr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2009½17 ,l lh lh 243 rFkk ¼2001½8 ,l lh lh 633 foosfprA ¼2011½12 ,l lh lh 408 rFkk 2002 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 48 vuqlfjrA
¼3½ naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 rFkk 401 && naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 304[k] 498d rFkk 302 && mPPk U;k;ky; ds le{k iqujh{k.k && e`rdk ds lkFk mRihM+u rFkk Øwj O;ogkj ds ckjs esa ,dy lk{kh us Hkh dfFkr ugh fd;k && e`rdk dh lkl vihykFkhZ.k ds lkFk ?kj esa ugh jg jgh Fkh && ?kVuk ds le; mifLFkr ugha && Øwjrk rFkk ngst e`R;qdkfjr djus ds fy, nks”kh ugh Bgjk;k tk ldrk && nwljk n`f”Vdks.k laHko gS ek= bl dkj.k ls nks”keqfDr dk fu.kZ; vikLr ugha fd; tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lk{; ds ewY;kadu ds ckn ik;k fd vfHk;kstu e`rdk dks fn;k x;k mRihM+u ds lac/k esa lk{; izLrqr djus ds vLkQy gqvkA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds iSjk 21 esa ns[kk fd ,dy lk{kh us Hkh e`frdk dks fn, x, mRihM+u rFkk Øwj O;ogkj ds ckjs esa vfHkopu ugha fd;kA -----fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh ik;k fd fo|knsoh v’kksd rFkk eats’k dqekjh ds lkFk ugh jg jgh Fkh rFkk og ?kVuk ds le; xk¡o [ksfj;k esa Hkh mifLFkr ugha FkhA blhfy, mls Øwjrk rFkk e`rdk dh ngst e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, nks”kh ugh Bgjk;k tk ldrkA
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lk{; dk Bhd ewY;kadu fd;k rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; =qfVghu gS rFkk fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk ughA nks”keqfDr ds fu.kZ; ds fy, Bksl rFkk fof/kekU; dkj.k fn, x,A nwljk fopkj laHko gS ek= blfy, nks”keqfDr dk fu.kZ; vikLr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2012½6 ,l lh lh 589 vuqlfjrA
¼4½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d && ds v/khu vijk/k && e`rdk dh ek¡ ds dFku dh lw{Ek tk¡p ds ckn && vU; vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa }kjk lefFkZr&& vfHkys[k ij i;kZIr lkexzh ikbZ xbZ && ngst dh ek¡x lkfcr && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZx.k dks Bhd&gh nks”kfl) fd;k && nks”kfl) ds fu”d”kZ esa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha && vihykFkhZx.k dh nks”kfLkf) dh iqf”V dh xbZ && nksuks vihys [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % e`rdk dh ek¡ deyk ¼v lk 5½ ds dFku dh lw{e tk¡p djus ds ckn tks fd vU; vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ls Hkh lefFkZr gS ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd ngst esa eksVj lk;dy dh ek¡x dks lkfcr djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij i;kZIr lkexzh miyC/k gS blfy, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZx.k&vfHkqDr dks lafgrk] 1860 dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu Bhd&gh fl)nks”k fd;kA
gekjs ikl lafgrk] 1860 dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu nks”kflf) ds fu”d”kZ esa gLr{ksi djus ds fy, dkj.k ugh gSA ge ,rn~}kjk lafgrk] 1860 dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu vihykFkhZx.k dh nks”kflf) dh iqf”V djrs gSA 1995 lhvkj ,y ts 174 foosfprA 1997¼1½ ØkbEl 245 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA
Gupta, J. -- 1. The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No.300/2000 (State of M.P. v. Shambhudayal and another), and Criminal Revision No.711/2004 (Mahavir Prasad v. State of M.P. and another), since they have arisen from the same incident.
2. Criminal appeal No.13/2000 has been filed by the appellants under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Code of 1973') being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.99 passed by the Ist ASJ, Bhind, in S.T.No.63/99 convicting the appellants under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for brevity ‘the Code of 1860’) and sentencing them to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- and Criminal Appeal No.300/2000 has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh under section 378 of the Code of 1973 after taking leave of this Court against the same judgment acquitting accused-Shambhudayal and Ashok Kumar of the charge under section 304B in the alternative under section 302 of the Code of 1860.
3. Criminal Revision No.711/2004 has been preferred by the revisionist-complainant being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2004 passed by the First ASJ, Bhind, in separate S.T.No.63/99 acquitting accused-Vidya Devi of the charges under sections 498A and 304B in the alternative under section 302 or 302/34 of the code of 1860.
4. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on the information of informant Pannalal dated 28.11.98 that daughter-in-law of Shambhudayal has died, Merg Intimation No.43/98 was registered at police Station, Mehgaon. During enquiry, it was found that marriage of deceased Manjesh Kumari was solemnized with Ashok Kumar son of Shambhudayal. After marriage, husband Ashok Kumar, father-in-law Shambhudayal and mother-in-law of the deceased started harassing her on demand of one Motorcycle in dowry. It was also found that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, FIR at Crime No.293/98 was registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498A, 34 of the Code of 1860 against Shambhudayal, Ashok Kumar and mother-in-law of the deceased (Vidyadevi).
5. After investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against Shambhudayal and Ashok Kumar showing Vidyadevi as absconding in the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.
6. The learned trial Court framed the charges under section 304B in the alternative under section 302 of the code of 1860 against accused Shambhudayal and Ashok Kumar. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded for trial.
7. In the trial of the aforesaid accused Shambhudayal and Ashok Kumar in order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and placed Ex.P-1 to P-17, the documents on record. Accused pleaded defence of alibi. The accused persons also In support of their defence, examined two witnesses namely Ramswaroop (DW1) and Hargovind (DW2).
8. The learned trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence convicted the accused persons under section 498A of the Code of 1860 and sentenced them as mentioned above, however, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charge under section 304B in the alternative under section 302 of the Code of 1860.
9. After arrest of accused Vidyadevi, police submitted supplementary charge-sheet against her in the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.
10. The learned trial Court framed the charges under sections 498A, 304B, in the alternative under section 302 or 302/34 of the Code of 1860 against accused Vidyadevi which she denied and pleaded for trial.
11. In a separate trial in order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and the accused Vidyadevi In support of her defence, examined one witness namely Ramesh
