Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Alok Verma, J.
Hariom v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.1287 of 1997 (Indore); against judgment of conviction passed by Sessions Judge,
Shajapur in ST.No. 155 of 2014; Decided on 3.5.2017
Vivek Singh for appellant; P. R. Bhatnagar for respondent/ State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.306 r/w S.34 -- conviction and sentence under by trial Court -- appeal -- according to trial Court, it may be assumed that she left house only to commit suicide -- again based on imagination -- circumstances cannot be taken into consideration to conclude that she committed suicide -- abatement to commit suicide not proved -- conviction and sentence under set aside -- appellant acquitted -- appeal partly allowed.
Held : According to the trial Court, it may be assumed that she left the house only to commit suicide. This again was based on imagination. Circumstances cannot be taken into consideration to conclude that she committed suicide and, therefore, if the main ingredients of section 306 of IPC that abatement should be to commit suicide is not proved and as such, so far as charge under section 306/34 of IPC is concerned, charge is not proved.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.498A r/w S.34 -- offence under --conviction and sentence by trial Court -- appeal -- it is apparent that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellants -- it is also proved that she was not happy with treatment given by appellants to her -- when there is injury caused to health of woman which includes mental health also -- such behaviour amounts to cruelty -- charge under proved -- conviction and sentence passed by trial Court confirmed -- appeal partly allowed.
Held : However, second limb which provides that when there is injury caused to the health of woman which includes mental health also, such behaviour amounts to cruelty. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is ample evidence available on recorded to show that she was treated with such cruelty that her behaviour appear to be that of a person who had lost mental equilibrium.
¼1½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306 lgifBr /kkjk 34 && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mica/k ds v/khu nks"kflf) rFkk naM+kns'k && vihy && fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vuqlkj og /kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gS fd mlus dsoy vkRegR;k dkfjr djus ds fy, ?kj NksM+k&&iqu%dYiuk ij vk/kkfjr && ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy, ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd mlus vkRegR;k dkfjr dh && vkRegR;k dkfjr djus ds fy, nq"izsj.k fl) ugha && mica/k ds v/khu nks"kflf) rFkk naM+kns'k vikLr && vihykFkhZ nks"keqDRk && vihy v'kr% eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkfjZr % fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vuqlkj ;g /kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gS fd mlus dsoy vkRegR;k dkfjr djus ds fy, ?kj NksM+kA ;g iqu% dYiuk ij vk/kkfjr FkkA ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy, fopkj esa ugh fy;k tk ldrk fd mlus vkRegR;k dkfjr dh rFkk blfy, ;fn naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 306 ds eq[; ?kVd dh nq"izsj.k vkRegR;k dkfjr djus ds fy, gksuk pkfg, fl) ugha gS RkFkk bl izdkj tgkW rd naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 306@34 ds v/khu vkjksi dk iz'u gS] vkjksi fl) ugha gSA
¼2½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d lgifBr /kkjk 34 && mica/k ds v/khu vijk/k && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kflf) rFkk naM+kns'k && vihy && ;g izdV gS fd og vihykFkhZx.k }kjk Øwjrk rFkk mRihM+u ds v/khu Fkh && ;g Hkh fl) gS fd og vihykFkhZx.k }kjk mlds lkFk fd, tk jgs O;ogkj ls [kq'k ugha Fkh && tc efgyk ds LokLF; ds lkFk {kfr dkfjr dh tkrh gS mlesa ekufld LokLF; Hkh 'kkfey gksrk gS && ,slk O;ogkj Øwjrk dh dksfV esa vkrk gS && mica/k ds v/khu vkjksi fl) && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks"kflf) rFkk naM+kns'k iq"V && vihy va'kr% eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % rFkkfi] f}rh; vax tks micaf/kr djrh gS fd tc efgyk ds LokLF; ds lkFk {kfr dkfjr dh tkrh gS ftlesa ekufld LokLF; Hkh 'kkfey gksrk gS ,slk O;ogkj Øwjrk dh dksfV esa vkrk gSA bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vfHkys[k ij ;g nf'kZr djus ds fy, O;kid lk{; miyC/k gS fd mlds lkFk ,slh Øwjrk dk O;ogkj ,sls O;fDr tSlk gks x;k ftlus ekufld larqyu [kks fn;k gksA
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur in ST No.155/2014 dated 19.12.1997, this criminal appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment and conviction under sections 306 and 498 A read with section 34 of IPC and sentence of 4 years each and fine of Rs.2,000/- under section 306/34 of IPC and sentence of 1 year RI each and fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 498 A/34 of IPC, with default stipulation. Appellant No.2 Chandrakalabai w/o Munshilal was reported expired on 3.2.2003 and the appeal filed by her was ordered to be abated by order dated 19.8.2004.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused Hariom s/o Munshilal, Chandrakalabai, wife of Munshilal are all residents of village Lima Chouhan, Police Station Chappiheda, District Shajapur. The deceased Sumanbai was married to accused Hariom in the year 1976. Accused Chandrakalabai is mother of accused Hariom and mother-in-law of the deceased. Munshilal (PW1) is the father-in-law of the deceased and father and husband respectively of accused Hariom.
3. Vasudev (PW4) is brother of the deceased. Whenever Sumanbai came to the house of her brother, she used to complain against the present appellants that they had been fighting with her and beating her and treating her with cruelty. On 19.9.1993 she left her matrimonial house without informing anybody. Munshilal, father-in-law of the deceased tried to search her for two days and thereafter, on 21.9.1993 he lodged a report of missing person at police station Lima Chouhan. The deceased was searched by Devilal (PW11) and Shambhu Dayal (PW12). A report of the missing persons was prepared by Shambhu Dayal (PW12) on 21.9.1993. Skeletal remains of woman was found in nearby forest of village Lima Chouhan and near the dead body, one saree and undergarment of a woman were also found. One golden Mangalsutra worn by married women was found near the skeletal remains. On the basis of her garments and Mangalsutra, the dead body was identified as that of deceased Sumanbai. Thereafter, a case was registered under section 306/34 of IPC.
4. After investigation section 498 A of IPC was also added. During investigation a letter written by appellant No.1 was seized which is marked as Ex.P-17. This letter was sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion whether the signature on the letter was of appellant No.1. The report was given in positive by the handwriting expert.
5. The trial Court framed charges under sections 498 A/34 and 306/34 of IPC. The appellants abjured their guilt. The trial Court recorded statements of prosecution witnesses, examined the appellant under sections 313 of CrPC, also, recorded statements of defence witnesses and return a finding of guilt under sections 306/34 and 498 A of IPC as aforesaid.
6. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal is filed on the ground that (i) defence version was totally discarded by the trial Court, while statement of the prosecution witnesses were believed which is against law (ii) there were material omissions and contradictions which were not taken into consideration by the trial Court (iii) the trial Court also failed to take into consideration whether the deceased Sumanbai committed suicide or her death was accidental was not proved by the prosecution (iv) the trial Court also erred in relying the statements of R.P.Pathak(PW13) and Vasudev(PW4) regarding alleged letter.
7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and pray that the appeal be dismissed and findings of the lower Court be affirmed.
8. Regarding offence under section 498 A of IPC, the Court relied on Ex.P-17. This letter was written on 20.7.1993 and handed over to the deceased Sumanbai. The contents of the letter showed that there was some incident on the festival of holi on 9.3.1993. The appellant No.1 admitted in the letter that he was instigated by his mother, appellant No.2 and on her instigation he committed a wrong for which he was ashamed. He a
