Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 1226
Mrs. Manjusha Namjoshi, J.
Kashiram v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 1990 (J); Decided on 9.12.2005. *
Prabhakar Rusia with Dhananjay Chaturvedi for appellant: Arun Nema, Panel Lawyer for State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 306 -- behaviour of husband -- may be a cause for suicide of his wife cannot he equaled with abetment -- that requires a positive step to be taken by accused to induce commission of the offence.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 498A -- word injury used in the provision -- is synonymous with words hurt or harm -- hurt means to cause physical injury or pain -- injury means physical harm -- cruelty means behaviour that causes pain or suffering.
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 319 -- hurt -- as defined under -- whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person -- is said to cause hurl.
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 44 -- word injury -- as defined under n means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 498A -- offence under -- 15 years elepsed -accused remained in jail for some days -- sufficient punishment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306 && ifr dk O;ogkj && viuh iRuh dh vkRegR;k dk dkj.k gks ldrk gS && fdarq nq"iszj.k ds leku ugha ekuk tk ldrk && vijk/k dkfjr djus ds fy, mRiszfjr djus ds fy, vfHk;qDr }kjk okLrfod mik; djus dh vis{kk gksrh gSA
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d && mica/k esa iz;qDr ‘‘kCn *{kfr* ‘‘kCn *migfr* vFkok *migkfu* dks i;kZ;okph gS && migfjr dk rkRi;Z ‘kkjhfjd {kfr ;k ihM+k dkfjr djuk gS && *{kfr* ls rkRi;Z ‘kkjhfjd migkfu gS && *dzwjrk* ls rkRi;Z ,slk O;ogkj gS tks ihM+k vFkok ;kruk dkfjr djrk gksaA
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 319 && ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr *migfr* && tks dksbZ fdlh O;fDr dks ‘kkjhfjd ihM+k] jksx ;k vax ‘kSfFkY;dkfjr djrk gS && og migfr djrk gS] ;g dgk tkrk gSA
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 44 && ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr *{kfr* rkRi;Z gS fdlh izdkj dh vigkfu tks fdlh O;fDr ds ‘kjhj] eu] [;kfr ;k laifRr dks voS/k :i ls dkfjr gqbZ gksA
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d && ds v/khu vijk/k && 15 o"kZ O;rhr && vfHk;qDr dqN fnu tsy esa jgk && #- 1]000@& ds tqekZus lfgr i;kZIr naM gSA
This appeal under section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the accused against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by Second Additional Sessions Judge. Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 7611988, decided 5.10.1990.
Sole appellant Kashiram was charged and prosecuted for commission of offence under section 498A and 306 IPC. on the ground that on 27.4.1999 at noon in village Raitpura he had subjected her wife Prabha to cruelty and abeted her to commit suicide. Learned trial Court. after appreciating the evidence available on record. has found the charges proved against the appellant and has, accordingly, awarded punishment of two years under section 498-A and three years punishment under section 306 IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is as under:
On the relevant date, that is on 27th April 1988 accused husband of the deceased was working on his agriculture field. It was about noon when Prabha Devi came from home taking meals for the accused. Accused roused to anger as she did not bring meals in time since he was hungry as he could not get meals since last day. In order to give vent to his anger he gave her beating by stem of Juwar (Thatera). Thereafter, Prabha went to her house and committed suicide by strangulating herself by hanging a rope. Police, Lighora of District Tikamgarh registered a case under section 174 CrPC and after investigation it was found that the accused had subjected her to cruelty for dowry and abeted her to commit suicide. S.H.O. Registered FIR (Exhibit (P-10). Postmortem was performed by Dr. H.N. Mishra who found that the death of Prabha was due to strangulation. Exhibit P-9A is his postmortem report.
On charge sheet being filed after completion of the investigation before Court, appel1ant-accused denied his guilt and pleaded that he has falsely been implicated in the case.
In the light of the aforesaid evidence available on record. learned counsel for the parties have not disputed that Prabha Devi had met with a suicide death. Thus, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter any further.
The case of the prosecution in misguided and misconceived. The only incidence which happened to commit suicide was that the accused gave beating to the deceased publicly. No question regarding demand of dowry was discussed by the couple on the spot. However, whole investigation and evidence produced by the prosecution was regarding demand of dowry. However, Radhika (PW 2), Mansukh (PW 3), Janki (PW 4). Nandu (PW 10) are declared hostile to the prosecution who have not supported the case of the prosecution. These witnesses are absolutely hostile. (PW 1) Dhanu who is father of the accused has also not supported the case of the prosecution though he has not been declared hostile. PW 6 Kallu Kotwar says that he saw the body of Prabha was hanging on Miyari in the ceiling of the room.
The witness was thereafter declared hostile on the other points what is disclosed by the evidence of this witness is that she was found dead and hanged. Mukundilal (PW 7) and Kalawati (PW 9) are parents of the deceased. In their lengthy statement and searching cross-examination. they say that accused used to demand dowry. She was not happy in bridegroom's house. She used to narrate to her friends about the behaviour of her husband and about demand of dowry. None of the friends has been examined. The statements of these two witnesses are full of exaggerations. contradictions and omissions and their statements have no evidentiary value. In any case, they do not know about beating given by the accused to the deceased. Dr. Mishra (PW 11) had performed postmortem on the body of the deceased. PW 12 S.B. Singh Parihar is investigating Officer whose evidence is of formal nature.
The evidence of PW 5 Sundarlal is only relevant in the case who says that he saw the accused beating Prabhadevi by Thatera (Stem of Juwar).
Thereafter, Prabhadevi and accused came to him. This witne
