SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 1032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
Sampat Bai – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondents
Cri. Appeal No. 333 of 2003
Decided on : 14-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Manish Awasthy
For the Respondent: Alok Tapikar

The court held that mere admonishment and lack of credible evidence regarding dowry demand do not satisfy the statutory definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Appeal against conviction for cruelty leading to suicide - The appellant was convicted based on the dying declaration of the deceased, which failed to establish direct evidence of dowry demand or cruelty - Evidence indicated mere admonishment by the appellant, not meeting the threshold for cruelty - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 21, 22, 34)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - The appellant challenged the trial court's judgment on grounds of illegality and impropriety in findings - Court emphasized strict proof in criminal cases and the necessity for credible evidence to sustain a conviction. (Paras 7, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, mother-in-law of the deceased, was convicted under Section 498-A for alleged cruelty leading to the deceased's suicide by self-immolation. The deceased was found to have sustained 100% burn injuries, and her dying declaration implicated the appellant and sister-in-law for harassment but lacked specific evidence of dowry demands. (Paras 1, 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was based on insufficient evidence, failing to establish the necessary elements of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 34, 35)

Issues: Whether the trial court's findings were flawed or illegal regarding the appellant's conviction under Section 498-A. (Para 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere admonishment and lack of credible evidence regarding dowry demand do not satisfy the statutory definition of cruelty under Section 498-A. (Paras 21, 22)

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and appellant acquitted. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

By this appeal filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the appellant-Sampat Bai W/o Maujilal Ahirwar has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11-2-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Session Trial No. 33/2001 convicting her for offence under section 498-A of IPC and sentencing her simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- under section 498-A of IPC, in case of non-payment of fine, she should undergo additional S.I. for two months.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The deceased-Sunita got married with Raju Ahirwar, who is son of the appellant herein, on 20-5-1997. The mother of the appellant used to live in her village but some times she also used to visit and stay with them. They lived in a rented house at Laundi. On 25-11-2000, the deceased Sunita poured kerosene and set fire by herself and sustained burn injuries, at that time, her husband Raju Ahirwar was outside the house, on hearing her voice he came inside the house and tried to save her and thereafter she was shifted to the hospital by her husband where Dr. S. S. Chaurasiya examined her and found that she got 100% burn injuries on account of which the Doctor referred to the District- Hospital Chhatarpur. In the meant time, information given to the Additional Tehsildar Laundi as she was able to give statement accordingly, Mr. M. K. Jain, Additional Tehsildar (PW-2) recorded the dying declaration of Sunita in which she stated her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to blame her and said that she allowed some people to her house for watching T.V. Further stated that they also harassed her and she was upset and set fire by herself. After recording the statement, the Dr. Chaurasiya certified the same. The father of the deceased and other relatives came there and met the deceased Sunita enquired about the reason for burning that she stated that her mother-in-law Sampat Bai and Sister-in-law Rani used to harass and beat her, therefore, she set fire by herself. Later, she was shifted to Jhansi Medical College for further treatment on the way she was died on 1-12-2000 and her husband informed the same to the police about the death of his wife. Mr. A. K. Dubey (PW-9) who was in-charge of police station investigated this case, during the investigation he recorded statement of witnesses and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the Primary Health Centre, Laundi for autopsy, accordingly, Mr. J.P. Nayak who conduced autopsy over the body of the deceased and recorded the reason of death was due to septicemia and 100% burnt and later Mr. A. K. Dubey, who is in-charge of the Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 4/2001 dated 8-1-2001 under sections 306 and 498-A read with section 34 of IPC against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased and inspected the scene and prepared a spot map under the supervision of Mr. Raju Ahirwar. On 11-1-2001, later appellant/accused was arrested and prepared Panchnama and examined the witnesses and it is found that the appellant misbehaved with the deceased, on account of which, the deceased-Sunita committed suicide and after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant/accused thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Laundi took the cognizance of offence under section 306 and 498-A of IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 25-1-2001. A prima-facie case having been established charges under section 306 and 498-A of IPC were framed against the appellant/accused (Sampat Bai) and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited some documents in support of their case.

4. Among the nine prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court relied on the evidence of PW-1 i.e. Doctor S. S. Chaurasiya and PW-2 Chhidami mother of the deceased and PW-3 Santosh brother of the deceased, PW-4 Shri M. K.

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top