Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 1066
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALPUR BENCH
N.K.Gupta, J.
Deepak & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 1996
Decided On : 11-10-2012
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State
Headnote:
Cruelty - IPC - Section 306, Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Section 306 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It highlighted the need for the prosecution to prove cruelty beyond doubt and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 113-A. The court also emphasized the requirement for specific evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offences. The judgment focused on the lack of evidence to prove the alleged cruelty and the absence of a charge framed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to the appellant Deepak, and the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution alleged harassment and cruelty towards the deceased, leading to her death. The appellants denied the allegations, and the trial court acquitted them of the offence under Section 304B but convicted them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged cruelty and harassment beyond doubt. It highlighted the lack of specific evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offences and emphasized the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The court also noted the absence of a charge framed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged cruelty and harassment leading to the deceased's death, the applicability of Section 306 and Section 498-A of IPC, and the absence of a charge framed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offences and highlighted the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It also focused on the lack of evidence to prove the alleged cruelty and the absence of a charge framed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants from all charges, including the charge of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The appellants were entitled to get the fine amount back if deposited before the trial court, and their bail bonds were discharged.
Judgment
N.K. Gupta, J.;-
1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 12/7/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in ST No. 193/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they were to undergo for one year and three months' simple imprisonment in addition. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No. 4 Radheyshyam had expired, therefore his name was deleted from the cause title of the appeal. It is admitted that the deceased was married to the appellant No. 1 Deepak, whereas the appellant No. 3 Smt. Shanti Bai, the appellant No. 2 Satish and the appellant No. 5 Gyaneshwari Bai are the mother, brother-in-law and sister of the appellant Deepak.
2. The prosecution's story, in short, is that the marriage of the deceased Jyanti Bai took place with the appellant No. 1 Deepak in April 1990. Deepak was a Clerk in MPEB and he was posted at Khidkiya at that time. 2-3 months after their marriage, the appellant Deepak was transferred to Timarni, and therefore he was residing at Timarni along with his parents and wife Jyanti Bai. At Timarni the appellant Satish, brother-in-law of the appellant Deepak was also residing, whereas Jaishri (PW-4), sister of the deceased was also residing at Timarni along with her husband Lakhanlal. Similarly, Lakhanlal Pare (PW-1) maternal uncle of the deceased was also residing at Timarni along with the family. For some time the deceased was kept with comfort and thereafter the appellants started the demand of TV and a double bed. The deceased was being harassed for such a demand. When a child was born to the deceased, her parents were directed to provide the clothes etc. to the relatives of the appellants, and therefore a letter Ex. P-2 was sent by the appellant Radheyshyam, father of the appellant Deepak to the parents of the deceased Jyanti Bai. Also the deceased wrote a letter Ex. P-3 to her parents relating to the demand. Since the parents of the deceased could not fulfill the demand of the appellants, a quarrel took place in that function between the appellants and the parents of the deceased. When a six months ceremony of maternal grand mother of the deceased held at Timarni in the house of Lakhanlal Pare (PW-1), the appellant Deepak neither attended that ceremony nor permitted the deceased Jyanti Bai to meet her parents. When the parents of the deceased left the township of Timarni, they were informed that the deceased was suffering from loose motion and vomiting. She was taken to the Harda Hospital and thereafter she was shifted to the Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal where she was found dead, and therefore a panchayatnama lash was prepared. Dr. M.C. Garg (PW-7), who was a treating doctor had informed that the colour of the body of the deceased was turned into the blue. Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW-10) did the postmortem on the body of the deceased and she found that the deceased died due to consumption of some poisonous substance. However, for confirmation to her opinion, the viscera of the deceased was preserved and handed over to the police for its forensic science examination. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Harda, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Hoshangabad and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Harda.
3. The appellants-accused abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea, but they have stated that the deceased was kept with comfort. The deceased and the appellant Deepak were residing in a locality where their house was surrounded by the houses of the reputed persons and there was no information gathered by the police from those persons about any misconduct or harassment done to the deceased. The marriage of the deceased took place in
