Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
R. S. Jha and Mohd. Fahim Anwar, JJ.
Rajkumar and others. v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2008 (Jabalpur); against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2007; Decided on 1.8.2018
P. L. Shrivastava for appellant No. 1; Siddharth Datt for appellants No. 2 and 3; Vaibhav Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.498A -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.60 -- father, uncle, mother and aunt of deceased categorically stated that husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased started to demand money from them after marriage -- father of deceased paid Rs. 20,000/- and then Rs. 10,000/- to fulfill demands -- cross-examined at length on this point -- no remarkable contradiction or omission -- cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they did not complain or lodge any report before her death -- conviction upheld. [Paras 9, 10 & 19
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.302 r/w S.34 -- deceased sustained injuries when she was alone with husband in her matrimonial house -- no blood stains on clothes of parents-in-law -- prosecution failed to prove they committed or took active part in committing murder -- conviction set aside. [Paras 16, 17 & 21
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.302 r/w S. 34 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 101, 102, 103 and 106 -- death due to injuries -- inflicted by hard and sharp cutting object -- human blood on axe recovered from husband -- same group as that of blood found on clothes of deceased and husband
-- deceased sustained injuries when she was alone with husband in her matrimonial house -- burden of proof shifts on husband -- explanation that deceased was disabled by one leg and fell from ladder -- injuries not of nature which can occur due to fall from ladder -- conviction deserves to be maintained. (1992)3 SCC 300 followed. [Paras 15, 17, 18 & 20
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && e`rdk ds firk] pkpk] ekrk vkSj pkph us Li"V dFku fd;k fd e`rdk ds ifr] llqj vkSj lkl us fookg ds i'pkr~ muls /ku dh ek¡x djuk vkjaHk dj fn;k && e`rdk ds firk us ek¡xsa iwjh djus ds fy, :- 20]000@& vkSj fQj :- 10]000@& lanÙk fd, && bl fcanq ij foLrkj ls izfrijhf{kr && dksbZ mYys[kuh; fojks/kkHkkl ;k yksi ugha && dsoy bl vk/kkj ij vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd mUgksaus e`rdk dh e`R;q ds iwoZ dksbZ f'kdk;r ;k fjiksVZ ugha dh &&lHkh ds fo#) vijkèk lkfcrA ¼iSjk 9] 10 ,oa 19
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 lgifBr /kkjk 34 && e`rd dks {kfr;k¡ rc igq¡ph tc og og vius nkEiR;x`g esa ifr ds lkFk vdsyh Fkh && lkl&lqlj ds oL=ksa ij jä ds /kCcs ugha && vfHk;kstui{k lkfcr djus esa vlQy fd mUgksaus gR;k dh vFkok mlesa lfØ; Hkkx fy;k && nks"kflf) vikLrA ¼iSjk 16] 17 ,oa 21
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 lgifBr /kkjk 34 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 101] 102] 103] rFkk 106 && {kfr;ksa ds dkj.k e`R;q && dBksj vkSj rh{.k /kkj okys gfFk;kj ls dkfjr && ifr ls cjken dqYgkM+h ij ekuo jä && mlh lewg dk tks e`rd vkSj ifr ds oL=ksa ij ik;k x;k && e`rdk dks {kfr;k¡ rc igq¡ph tc og og vius nkEiR;x`g esa ifr ds lkFk vdsyh Fkh && lcwr dk Hkkj ifr ij varfjr && Li"Vhdj.k ;g fd e`rd ,d iSj ls v'kDr Fkh vkSj lh<+h ls fxj xbZ && {kfr;k¡ ml izÑfr dh ugha tks lh<+h ls fxjus ls igq¡ps && nks"kflf) dk;e j[ks tkus ;ksX;A ¼1992½3 ,l lh lh 300 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15] 17] 18 ,oa 20
Anwar, J -- 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants under section 374(2) of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 164/2007, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under sections 498 A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for one year and under section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Bhagirath (PW1), the father of deceased Ramdulari had lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 17.8.2007 at about 11 o’clock in Police Station Ahmadpur, in which it is alleged that his daughter Ramdulari was married with Rajkumar in the year 2003 and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given. It is further alleged that his daughter Ramdulari was subjected to cruelty, harassment and torture by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry and an information to that effect was given to him by his daughter and thereafter Bhagirath met the accused persons and tried to pacify the matter by stating that he will pay the demanded money after harvest. Thereafter he came to Chhatarpur and at about 4 p.m., he received information that his daughter was suffering from some disease whereupon he and one Shambu Gaur went to Manpur, where he saw that his daughter was lying dead and found signs of axe injury on her head. It is alleged that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws and due to this, they assaulted her with an axe. Ramdulari died within seven years of her marriage.
3. Bhagirath (PW1) had lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 17.8.2007 in Police Station Ahmadpur. The police registered the offence and conducted the inquest. Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was also got prepared and body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Sehore. An axe was recovered and seized at the instance of appellant Rajkumar. The statements of witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Court.
4. The appellants have been charged under sections 498 A, 304-B and 302/34 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.
5. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence found the appellants not guilty under section 304B of IPC and acquitted them of the charge of 304B of IPC, however found them guilty under sections 498A, and 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned finding recorded by the trial Court suffers from perversity and non-application of mind to the oral and documentary evidence on record, It is submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the factum of cruelty soon before the death has not been established by the prosecution. There is no evidence on record, so as to indicate that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in furtherance of a demand for dowry by the appellants. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the testimony of prosecution witnesses as the same is full of contradictions, omissions, improvement and are inconsistent.
7. Learned counsel for State has submitted that the appellants were involved in commission of offence, therefore the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.
8. Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, in this case it is not controverted that the death of deceased had taken place within 3-4 years of her marriage with the appellant No.1. It is also not disputed that the deceased Ramdulari was found dead in her matrimonial house where she used to live with her husband-appellant No. 1 Rajkumar and appellants No.2 and 3 Balram and Smt.Dhopubai, who are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively.
9. As mentioned above there i
