Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Lokendra Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 586 of 2003
Decided On : 18-07-2018
For the Petitioners: Shri Pradeep Katare, counsel.
For the Respondents: Shri B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor.
The court reiterated the principles of burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. The court also emphasized the importance of considering circumstantial evidence and incriminating circumstances in determining the guilt of the accused, especially when direct evidence is lacking.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 374 OF CRPC - CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 304-B, 498-A, 201 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - CHALLENGE - ISSUE OF MARRIAGE DATE - DEMAND OF DOWRY - HARASSMENT - DISPOSAL OF DEAD BODY - ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION - INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES - GUILTY CONSCIOUSNESS - CONVICTION UPHELD - SENTENCE MODIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased Saroj died within seven years of her marriage in suspicious circumstances. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, including the husband, brother-in-law, and mother-in-law of the deceased, demanded dowry and harassed her, leading to her death. The appellants claimed that the deceased died due to natural causes and that the marriage took place on a different date than claimed by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died in suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage. The court found that the appellants had failed to prove that the marriage took place on a different date and that the deceased was being harassed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The court also noted that the appellants had absconded after the incident and had not informed the parents of the deceased about her death, indicating their guilty consciousness.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died in suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage? 2. Whether the appellants had proved that the marriage took place on a different date than claimed by the prosecution? 3. Whether the deceased was being harassed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands? 4. Whether the appellants' absconding after the incident and failure to inform the parents of the deceased about her death indicated their guilty consciousness?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died in suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage based on the following factors: - The postmortem report indicated that the deceased had remained submerged in water for a considerable time. - The appellants admitted that the deceased had died in the matrimonial house and that her dead body was submerged in the river. - The dead body was found tied with heavy stones, indicating an attempt to prevent it from floating. 2. The court held that the appellants had failed to prove that the marriage took place on a different date than claimed by the prosecution based on the following factors: - The appellants' witness, a Pandit who had written the Lagun, could not provide consistent and reliable information about the date of the Lagun ceremony. - The school admission register and mark sheet produced by the appellants contained overwriting and variations in ink, raising doubts about their authenticity. - The appellants failed to produce the birth certificate or Kotwari book entry to prove the date of birth of the deceased's child. 3. The court held that the deceased was being harassed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands based on the following factors: - The deceased's father testified that she had complained about harassment and demand for dowry after one and a half years of marriage. - The deceased had called her brother just a day before her death, requesting him to take her away as she was being harassed. - The appellants failed to provide any explanation for the harassment allegations or to inform the parents of the deceased about her death. 4. The court held that the appellants' absconding after the incident and failure to inform the parents of the deceased about her death indicated their guilty consciousness.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the court modified the sentence, reducing the rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC from ten years to seven years, the minimum sentence prescribed under the law.
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 30/09/2003 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhind in Sessions Trial No.260/2002, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 of IPC as well as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of ten years, rigorous imprisonment of two years, rigorous imprisonment of two years and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-for each offence respectively, with default imprisonment.
2. The undisputed fact is that appellant No.1-Lokendra Singh is the husband, appellant No.2-Jogendra Singh is the brother-in-law and appellant No.3-Bitouli Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Smt. Rama, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased, was also tried along with the appellants, but she has been acquitted. Her acquittal has not been challenged either by the State or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to Smt. Rama would be in the context of allegations made against the appellants.
3. The necessary facts for the disposal of present appeal in short are that on 06/07/2002, the deceased Saroj died other than in normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Her dead body was disposed of by the appellants in a clandestine manner. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was married to the appellant No.1 on 09/05/1997 as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, father of the deceased Saroj had given Rs.60,000/-in cash and articles worth of Rs.30,000-35,000/-. About one and a half years from the date of marriage, the deceased Saroj was kept properly. However, thereafter the appellants started demanding Rs.50,000/-and a motorcycle from the deceased Saroj and because of non-fulfillment of said demand, the deceased Saroj was being harassed by the appellants. Ultimately, she died under suspicious circumstance. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the river after tying the same with heavy stones. Prior to her death, she had requested her brother Vinod Singh Chauhan on 05/07/2002 to take her back otherwise she would be killed. When the father of the deceased Ravindra Singh Chauhan, came back to his house on 07/07/2002, Vinod Singh Chauhan informed his father about the telephonic request made by the deceased and accordingly, on 08/07/2002 the brother of the deceased went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and found that the house was locked and there was nobody in the house. An information was given by the brother of the deceased to his father and accordingly, the parents of the deceased along with some other persons came to village Phoop, District Bhinnd, where they were informed by the neighbourers that the deceased Saroj has already been killed by the appellants and her dead body has been immersed in Kuari river near Paraghat. The dead body of the deceased was identified by the parents of the deceased. The police, after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the appellants for the offences under Sections 304B, 498-A, 201, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 304-B, in the alternative Section 304-B/34, under Section 498-A in the alternative Section 498-A/34, under Section 201 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Mewaram (PW1), N.L.Pippal (PW2), Ravindra Singh Chauhan (PW3), Munim Singh (PW4), Vinod Singh Chauhan (PW5), Shivpal Singh (PW6), Ramhet Singh Tomar (PW7), Shanti (PW8), Naresh Singh (PW9), RD Prajapati (PW10), JS Chauhan (PW11), Virendra Kumar (PW12) and Dr.JN Soni (PW13).The appellants, examined Maturlal Sharma (DW1) and Kamlesh Singh (DW2), in their defence.
6. The trial Court by judgment dated 30/09/2003 convicted the
