SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

R.V. RAVEENDRAN,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, , ,
RAJBABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-000895-000895 / 2003 24-07-2008



Advocates:
SHIV SAGAR TIWARI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.895 OF 2003

Rajbabu & Anr.

…. Appellants

Versus

State of M.P.

…. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. By this Judgment and order we propose to dispose of the appeal filed by

the appellants against the judgment and order dated 23-9-2002 of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the Learned Single Judge

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and

order dated 17-6-1989 of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai,

convicting the appellants under the provisions of Sections 306 and 498A

of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentencing each of them

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count.

2. The deceased, Shanti Bai, daughter of Janak Rani (PW.1) and Gyan Das

(PW.2) was married to Rajbabu-appellant No.1 two years prior to the date

of occurrence. On 17.7.1988 Shanti Bai set herself on fire in her

matrimonial home and she died because of burn injuries received by her.

At the time when the occurrence took place the Appellant No.2, Smt.

Munnibai (mother-in-law of the deceased) had gone to fetch water from

the well. The husband of Appellant No.2, Shri Jagat Bandhu (father-in-

law of the deceased), who was acquitted by the trial court, was away to

some other place, whereas Appellant No.1 had gone for cutting wood

from the forest. Appellant No.1 immediately coming to know about the

incident came back and lodged the first information report at police

station Bhangarh which was recorded by the Head Constable Narbada

Prasad, who was examined as PW.9 during the trial. The said report

which was lodged by the appellant No.1 was exhibited during the trial and

was marked as Ex. P.16. The deceased was carried to the railway station

Karonda for being taken to the Government Hospital at Bina for

treatment. The police station Incharge, Mr. Ashok Chourasia (PW.8), also

arrived at the railway station and recorded the dying declaration, wherein

it was noted that Shanti Bai died in the accidental fire while cooking food

in the house. In the said dying declaration the deceased exculpated all the

members of her matrimonial home. Immediately thereafter she died at the

railway station itself. The police thereafter sent the body for post mortem

2

examination which was conducted and exhibited as Ex. P.20 during the

trial. According to the said post mortem report the deceased suffered 90%

burns which were found to be ante mortem. The police thereafter started

investigation and on completion thereof, submitted a charge-sheet against

Rajbabu-appellant No.1, Smt. Munnibai-appellant No. 2, who is mother of

appellant No.1 and Jagat Bandhu, father of the appellant No.1 under

Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-

sheet, charges were framed against all the three accused-appellants under

Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC for treating the deceased with cruelty

and abetting her to commit suicide as a result of which allegedly she

committed suicide.

3. During the course of the trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined in

order to prove the charges against the accused persons. Trial court after

hearing the arguments and on appreciation of the evidence on record

acquitted accused No.3, the father of the Appellant No.1, whereas an

order was passed convicting appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 under

Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC after holding that offences against both

of them are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court

thereafter passed an order of sentence, sentencing both the appellants to

3

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count. Both the

sentences were to run concurrently. No fine was imposed. Against the

aforesaid judgment both the appellants filed an appeal before the High

Court which was dismissed by its judgment on 23rd September, 2002.

Being aggrieved b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top