Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nanni Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2016
CRR-2081-2014
(NANNI BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
07-01-2016
Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate for applicant. Shri Anubhav Jain, Panel Lawyer for State. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh on 22.11.2013 in Criminal Case No.3159/2009 convicting the applicant for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and directing her to undergo the sentence of 1 year and 6 months rigorous imprisonment respectively with fine and default stipulation. Criminal Appeal No.224/2013 was preferred before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, which was decided vide judgment dated 19.9.2014 reducing the sentence to the extent of six months. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of Appellate Court, this revision has been preferred. On perusal of the prosecution allegation, it is not in dispute that the husband is still under absconsion and the present trial has been proceeded against mother-in-law Nanni Bai (applicant herein). Against Nanni Bai either in the first information report or in the testimony of the complainant, the only allegation has been brought that from the date of the incident about one year back, the husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law committed cruelty with the complainant and closed the door of the room and thereafter, the allegation has been alleged against the husband. However, the present case is required to be examined on the touchstone of the allegation against applicant Nanni Bai (mother-in-law). As stated above, it is clear that without specifying any date and time of committing cruelty by omnibus allegation against the present applicant, nothing has been alleged. In Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Appellate Court, it has been discussed that the application indicating cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry has been written by an advocate and it was signed by the complainant.
On perusal of Paragraph 9 of the statement of complainant Laxmi Bai (PW.1), it is clear that the first information report has been lodged after six years of the date of marriage. It is further clear from Paragraph 16 of her statement that the parents of the complainant were very poor and BPL card holders. However, in the marriage, some utensils were given to the in-laws. It is also admitted that the in-laws are well to do and within three years of the marriage, both the kids were born. In Paragraph 12 of her statement, it is said that the police complaint submitted to the police station was prepared by a police personnel and not written by her. When no action was taken on the said complaint then subsequent application was submitted to the Superintendent of Police drafted by Khuman Singh, Advocate. The said fact has been discussed by the Appellate Court in Paragraphs 8 and 9 but in Paragraph 10 because the statement of Kalyan Singh is already there whose name has not been specified in the first information report and in the testimony of the complainant Laxmi Bai, therefore, the said testimony does not co-relate any incident particularly without specifying any date, time and cause as to why she was subjected to cruelty.
On perusal of definition as specified under Section 498-A of IPC, the cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.
In the present case, no sort of evidence proving cruelty has been brought on record. In absence thereto, the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be proved. However, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed an error by proving the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against mother-in-law Nanni Bai (applicant herein) from the allegations brought by the prosecution against her.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision stands allowed. The finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court convicting the applicant for the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act stands set aside. In consequence thereto, the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is on bail. Her bail bonds shall stand discharged.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE