Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 151
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.K. Gangele, J.
Badri Vishal and another v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.48 of 1998 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment
dated 21.11.1997, passed by First Additional District Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.106 of 1996; Decided on 5.3.2015.
S.C. Datt with Siddarth Datt for appellants;
Akhilesh Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent.
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.498A and 304B -- conviction and sentence under provisions -- dead body of woman found floating in well nearby house of appellants -- for 24 hours appellants did not take appropriate steps to find out deceased -- this conduct shows behaviour of appellants was cruel against deceased -- evidence available that appellants demanded dowry -- last demand made before ten days prior to occurrence of death of deceased -- persistent demand of scooter and TV -- trial Court rightly passed judgment of conviction and awarded proper sentence -- appeal dismissed.
Held : In the present case also the last demand was made before ten days prior to occurrence of death of the deceased. There was persistent demand of scooter and TV. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the ingredients of section 304B has been made out and the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants for commission of offence under sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. There is evidence that both the appellants had demanded dowry. The conduct of the appellant is also quite suspicious because they had not informed about death of the deceased to her parents.
From the aforesaid statement of accused-appellant, it is clear that deceased was missing for last 24 hours. Neither report in regard to missing of the deceased was lodged at the police station nor her parents were informed. Parents of the deceased specifically deposed that they came to know about the death of the deceased from the police. It means that for 24 hours, appellants did not take appropriate steps to find-out the deceased. This conduct also shows that the appellants behavior was cruel against the deceased. AIR 1957 SC 589 distinguished. (2004)3 SCC 98 followed. AIR 2003 SC 3828 and (2013)16 SCC 353 referred to.
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 498d rFkk 304[k & mica/kksa ds v/khu nks”kflf} rFkk naMkns’k & efgyk dk e`rd ‘kjhj vihykFkhZ ds ?kj ds ikl d¡q, esa rSjrk gqvk ik;k x;k & 24 ?kaVs ls vihykFkhZx.k }kjk e`rd ds irk djus ds fy, dksbZ mfpr dne ugha mBk, x, & ;g vkpj.k n’kkZrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k dk O;ogkj e`rd ds fo:} dzwjrkiw.kZ Fkk & lk{; miyC/k gS fd vihykFkhZx.k us ngst dh ek¡x dh & vafre ek¡x e`rdk dh e`R;q gksus ds 10 fnu iwoZ dh xbZ & LdVwj rFkk Vh-oh- dh yxkrkj ek¡x & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Bhd gh nks”kflf} dk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k rFkk mfpr naMkns’k vf/kfu.khZr fd;k & vihy [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % orZeku ekeys esa Hkh vafre ek¡x e`rdk dh e`R;q gksus ls 10 fnu iwoZ dh xbZA LdVwj rFkk Vh-oh- dh yxkrkj ek¡x dh xbZA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] esjs fopkj ls] /kkjk 304[k ds la?kVd curs gS rFkk vfHk;kstu us vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:} /kkjk 304[k rFkk 498d Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds v/khu vijk/k dkfjr djuk fl} fd;kA ;g lk{; gS fd nksuksa vihykFkhZx.k us ngst dh ek¡x dhA vihykFkhZ dk vkpkj.k Hkh fcYdqy lansgkLin gS D;ksafd mUgksaus e`rdk dh e`R;q ds ckjs esa mlds ekrk&firk dks lwfpr ugha fd;kA
vkjksih@vihykFkhZ ds iwoksZDr dFku ls ;g Li”V gS fd e`rdk vafre 24 ?kaVs ls ykirk Fkh] uk rks fdlh ds }kjk Fkkus esa ykirk e`rdk ds laca/k esa fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ uk gh mlds ekrk&firk dks lwfpr fd;kA e`rdk ds ekrk&firk us fo’ks”k :i ls vfHklk{; nh fd os iqfyl ls e`rdk dh e`R;q ds ckjs esa tkudkjh ysus vk, gSA bldk vFkZ gS 24 ?kaVs ls vihykFkhZx.k }kjk e`rdk dk irk djus ds fy, dne ugha mBk, x,A ;g vkpj.k n’kkZrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k dk O;ogkj e`rdk ds fo:} dzwjrkiw.kZ FkkA , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 589 izHksfnrA ¼2004½ 3 ,l lh lh 98 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 38 rFkk ¼2013½ 16 ,l lh lh 353 fufnZ”VA
1. This Appeal is preferred by the accused-appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.1997 passed by the First ADJ, Rewa in S.T. No.106/96. By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge convicted the appellants for commission of offence under section 498A and 304B of the IPC with direction to undergo for RI 3 years in the first count while RI seven years in the last count.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that appellant No.2 Radheshyam married with the deceased Munni Bai. She died on 19.3.1996. Her body was found in the Well which was nearby to the house of the appellants. After information of death, the body of the deceased was taken-out from the well which was floating. A marg was registered at Police Station Suhagi. On the basis of the statement of the family members of the deceased, the police came to know that accused persons had demanded a Scooter and TV from the parents of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed three years before. Police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in the case. The trial Court after trial found the charges proved against the appellants and awarded the sentence as mentioned above.
3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in their support whereas accused appellants examined one witness in their defense.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the cause of death of the deceased is not clear because as per post-mortem of the deceased there was no water in the lungs of the deceased, hence it could not be held that the deceased died due to drowning. The prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death of the deceased that whether it was homicidal, suicidal or accidental. He further submitted that there is no evidence that the appellants had treated the deceased with cruelty or any demand of dowry was made from the parents of the deceased by the appellants. The ingredients of section 304B are not made out, hence the judgment passed by the trial Court is against the law. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied on judgments in the matter of State of M.P v. Sanjay Rai [(2004)10 SCC 570], Waizir Chand and another v. State of Haryana [AIR 1989 SC 378], Akula Ravinder and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1991 SC 1142], Shrikishan alias Chukku v. State of M.P. [1991 Vol.36 MPLJ 85].
5. Learned Panel Lawyer contended that there is enough evidence against the appellants. The doctor, in his evidence, categorically stated that deceased died due to drowning. She committed suicide. Appellants had demanded dowry from the deceased and when demand was not met-out,their behaviour with the deceased became cruel, hence she committed suicide.
6. Mahadev Chourasia (PW2), in his evidence, deposed that deceased was his sister. Her marriage took place 4 years before. She used to live in her in-law’s house. Her in-law’s did not inform about death of Munni Bai. After post-mortem we had seen the body of the deceased. When deceased use to visit parental home, she used to tell that appellants had demanded scooter and TV. We could not fulfil the demand of scooter and TV, hence appellants had killed the deceased. In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he could not remember when the demand of scooter and TV was made.
7. Parwati (PW3), sister-in-law of the deceased, in her evidence, deposed that when deceased used to visit parental home, she use to tell that appellants had demanded scooter and TV. Appellants use to beat her. She further deposed that she received the information about death of the deceased from the police.
8. Misrilal (PW4) is the father of the deceased. He deposed that marriage of deceased had taken-place three years before the incident. Deceased stayed in the matrimonial home from Baisak Bhado till Teeja. Thereafter, she came to parental home and told me that appellants had demanded scooter and TV. She furt
