C A V Order

Date : 20/07/2021

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2002 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Sakti, District-Bilaspur, in S.T. No. 357/2001 whereby, the learned Upper Sessions, Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under :-

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Rama Bai was married with appellant Khol Bahara about 6 months prior to the date of incident. On 13.10.2000 between 7:30-10:30 am. deceased Rama Bai committed suicide at village Jetha by hanging herself with a rope meant for fetching water from the well. During merg inquiry it was found that the deceased was tortured on petty matters and was also assaulted by the appellants, therefore, she was committed suicide. FIR was lodged against the accused persons and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was 昀椀led and charges were framed under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC against the appellants/accused persons.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. In their support one defence witness has examined and statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced them as described in the above mentioned column before para-2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts available on record. Learned trial Court erred in holding that the accused persons have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thus the prosecution has failed to prove abetment on the part of the appellants, as de昀椀ned under Section 107 of IPC. He next submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the o昀昀ence under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. The statement of prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions on important aspects and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the appeal is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance in the matters of M. Arjunan Vs. The State reported in (2019) 3 SCC 31, Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 and Nepal Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 12 SCC 351.

6. On the other hand State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

8. Learned trial Court framed charges against appellants under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Ramkunwar Bai (PW-1) stated in her statement that Ramabai was married to Kholbahra in village Jetha. Ramabai had come to village Markamgodi during Rakshabandhan and Navratri. She stated that when Ramabai meet her friends, they asked about her well-being she started crying. On being asked as to whey she is crying, she told that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law are giving a lot of troubles. Her in-laws used to say she did not bring TV, fan in dowry and therefore, her in-laws used to abuse and beat her, due to which she had vomitted blood. Baharta (PW-4) has stated in his statement that merg intimation report (Ex.P-4) was lodged by him. He has also stated that the accused is his brother, Champa Bai is his mother and the deceased Ramabai was his sist