Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shantilal vs State Of M.P. on 9 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2(2005)DMC146
JUDGMENT A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. The appellant has filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2000 in S.T. No. 74/97 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam of his conviction and sentence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. for the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and under Section 498A for the rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of 2 months.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant accused Shantilal was the husband of Manjubai and their marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1992. This fact is undisputed that Manjubai has died within 7 years of her marriage on 7.10.1996.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was in habit of ill-treating and physically assaulting his wife in order to press her to bring the dowry. That on 5.10.1996 the mother-in-law of Manjubai brought her from the matrimonial house to the house of her parents and she was left in the house of her parents. That Manjubai was having the injuries on the various parts of the body and her physical condition was not good, that Manjubai told her mother that she was beaten by the accused to fulfil the greed of the dowry. On 7.10.1996 Manjubai has died in the Hospital. That the report Ex. P/13 was lodged in Police Station Jaora and from the post-mortem of Manjubai it was found that she was having various injuries on her body. The case under Sections 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. was registered against the appellant accused and also against Mangubai and Basantibai and the charge-sheet was filed against them.
4. The appellant accused has abjured the guilt and denied the statement of the prosecution witness and pleaded false implication.
5. The learned Trial Court after examining 10 prosecution witnesses has held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case only against appellant Shantilal and both the co-accused were acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
6. The appellant has assailed the conviction on the ground that the death of Manjubai is not proved within 7 years of her marriage and it is also not proved that just before her death she was treated with cruelty for the dowry and, as such, the offence of dowry death is not proved and the appellant should be acquitted.
7. Appellant in reply to the question No. 1 of his cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has admitted that the marriage of accused Shantilal with Manjubai was performed in the year 1992. Manjubai has died in the month of October, 1996. Consequently, it is established that Manjubai died within 7 years of her marriage.
8. Dr. B.L. Boriwal (P.W. 2) has stated on 7.10.1996 in Civil Hospital Jaora he has performed the autopsy of the body of Manjubai aged about 23 years and there were innumerable contusions on both sides of her hips and two abrasions on the left side of the breast, one abrasion on the right scapular region. One contusion below the left breast and there were two contusions on the legs measuring 6x1 cm. Dr. B.L. Boriwal (P.W. 2) has further stated that the injuries were caused by the hard and blunt object and they were ante-mortem. It is further stated by the doctor that on account of the injuries and the pain in the chest, Manjubai has died and Ex. P/5 is the post-mortem report. It is not explained at all that how Manjubai has received innumerable injuries by hard and blunt object in her matrimonial house. Manjubai was taken by her relatives on 6.10.1996 for the treatment to Dr. Anand Chandelkar (P.W. 1) who has stated that she was having injuries on her body and she was having fever and her condition was serious. Consequently, it is clear, that the deceased Manjubai has died on account of illness and the injuries in a highly suspicious circumstances.
9. Now to prove the offence of the dowry death only point remains to be seen is whether just before the death of Manjubai she was treated with cruelty for the dowry by the accused. Ramkrishan (P.W. 5) has stated that Manjubai was his daughter and she used to tell him that her husband and mother-in-law, sister-in-law are in habit of beating her and the reason of her ill-treatment was that she has not brought enough dowry in her marriage. Ramkrishan (P.W. 5) has further stated that 6 months before the death of Manjubai he went to the matrimonial house and she told him that the accused has beaten her to fulfil the greed of his dowry. Ramkrishan (P.W. 5) has further stated that one day before the death of Manjubai her mother-in-law brought Manjubai from the matrimonial house and Manjubai was ill and she told her that the accused has beaten her. Ramkrishan (P.W. 5) has further stated that Manjubai was having the marks of injury 011 her entire body and she was taken to the hospital for the treatment and thereafter she died.
10. Rukmanibai (P.W. 6) has stated that Manjubai was her relative and whenever she used to come from her matrimonial house she told her that her husband is in habit of beating her for the money. Rukmanibai (P.W. 6) has further stated that a day before her death the mother-in-law of Manjubai left her in the house of her parents and Manjubai told her that she was beaten by the accused. Rukmanibai (P.W. 6) has further stated that Manjubai was having the marks of injury on all parts of her body. Ramkishan (P.W. 5) and Rukmanibai (P.W. 6) have no reason to falsely implicate the accused. These witnesses have not contradicted their earlier statement and there is no material contradiction in between their statement on oath. The learned Trial Court has discussed at length the statement of Ram Kishan (P.W. 5) and Rukmanibai (P.W. 6) and it was rightly held that they are natural and trustworthy.
11. The alleged key ingredient of dowry death that deceased must be subjected to cruelty and harassment firstly in connection with the demand for dowry and second shortly before death, fully established. Consequently, it is proved that just before the death of Manjubai within 7 years of her marriage, she was treated with cruelty for the demand of dowry. Consequently, the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. is proved. It is observed in case of Heeralal v. Delhi, III (2003) CCR 41 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC 2865, that Court has no jurisdiction to award the sentence of less than 7 years as minimum sentence under Section 304B(2) of I.P.C. is 7 years. The same calls for no interference.
12. Appeal is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed.