Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Singh And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 25 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2442 of 1998
Between:-
KRISHNA SINGH AND ORS. , AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, (MADHYA
1.
PRADESH)
PHOOLMATIYA W/O SHRI RAM PRASAD SINGH GOND , AGED
2. ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O BHAGWANPUR POLICE STATION JANAKPUR
DIST. KORIYA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAM PRASAD S/O SHRI GAYANDEEN GOND , AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. R/O BHAGWANPUR POLICE STATION JANAKPUR, DIST. KORIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY Ms. SHIKHA SHARMA, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellants Krishna Singh S/o Shri Ramprasad Singh, Phoolmatiya w/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Gond and Ram Prasad S/o Shri Gayadeen Gond under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5/10/1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Beohari, District Shahdol in S.T. No. 48/1998 State Vs. Krishna Singh and others convicting them under Section 306 of I.P.C. with R.I. of four years and fine of Rs. 500/- against each of them. 2
2. Learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Shikha Sharma submits that as per the prosecution story on 26/07/1997 at about 4-5 A.M. Koushalya w/o appellant no. 1 Krishna Singh had left her house. On 27/07/1997, she was found hanging with a jute rope tied from Mahua tree which was discovered by Arjun Singh who had informed inturn to Krishna Singh when Ram Prasad had lodged a report at Police Station Janakpur on 27/08/1997 at about 15:10 hours.
3. It is submitted that Koushalya was stopped from visiting her parental home (ek;dk), as a result of which she committed suicide, merg intimation no. 11/97 Annexure P-10 was registered.
4. The investigation was carried out. The charge-sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Beohari, Link court, Janakpuri on which matter was committed to the sessions court.
5. The charges were framed under Section 304-B and 306 of I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and submitted that they are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case.
6. The prosecution examined Babulal Singh PW-1, Sushila PW-2, Puran PW-6, Thakurniya PW-9, Gendabai PW-5, Shantibai PW-3 and Dr. M. Lal PW-13.
7. It is submitted that the court did not believe the witnesses and has dropped the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. It is submitted that on the testimony of unworthy witnesses, conviction has been recorded under Section 306 of I.P.C. which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3
8. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M.Mohan Vs. the State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police AIR 2011 SC 1238 so also in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2012 (10) JT 478, Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433 and Randhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129 in support of her contention.
9. Learned Panel Lawyer in his turn submits that death occurred within seven years of marriage. The conviction under Section 306 and 498-A are sustainable and they do not call for any interference.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that PW-1 Babulal singh is the father of deceased Koushalya. He has deposed that he had married his daughter five years prior to the incident with accused Krishna. At the time of marriage, there was demand for cycle, radio and T.V. On account of non-fulfilment of their demand, the accused were harassing his daughter in the form of not giving her proper food.
11. She was also tortured in the name of not bearing a child. Similarly, Charku PW-2 Grandfather of Koushalya deposed that Koushalya used to inform about harassment. He had said that his Granddaughter was made to work for the whole day and even she was asked to thrash the paddy.
12. PW-3 Shantibai is wife of elder brother of Babulal and she 4 deposed about the taunt of not bearing a child. She has deposed that accused used to demand a motorcycle.
13. PW-4 Sushila mother of the deceased deposed that whenever they used to go to invite Koushalya or take her to her paternal home, the accused used to deny permission. They were not giving necessary daily use goods like oil, soap and clothing etc and also harassing her in the matter of food etc. They used to say that they have not received cycle, watch etc. and, therefore, used to harass the deceased. PW-5 Genda Bai is also wife of elder brother of Babulal PW-1. She has also made omnibus allegations of demand of dowry.
14. PW-6 Puran father of Koushalya's mother i.e. Sushila deposed that Krishna used to bring Koushalya with him and used to take her back with him. He deposed that his wife Thakurniya was briefed by Koushalya about harassment in regard to clothing etc. This witness admitted that Thakurniya never informed him about harassment on account of dowry.
15. PW-7 Savitri also deposed that Koushalya used to inform her that she is in trouble in her matrimonial home.
16. PW-8 Sushila deposed that marriage was performed five to six years prior to the incident. Koushalya used to inform her that her husband and in-laws used to demand dowry and harass her for food and cloth. PW-9 Thakurniya also deposed that for the demand of dowry, Koushalya was harassed. PW-10 Bhagwanti Bai, PW-11 Babbi bai and PW-12 Raghuwansh did not support the prosecution case. 5
17. PW-13 Dr. M. Lal deposed that he was posted as Block Medical Officer at Primary Health Center Janakpur. He had carried out postmortem on the body of Koushalya. The body was decomposed and maggot was present. The Hyoid bone was broken without there being no injury marks on the body. The cause of death was Asphyxia due to hanging within 48 hours. Postmortem report is Ex. P-6. He deposed that the rope which was broken was capable of bearing load of the victim.
18. In the cross-examination PW-1 Babulal denied suggestion that in the Gond community, dowry is not given. He denied suggestion that Ramprasad had given 25 quintals of rice. He admitted that at the time of marriage, there was no settlement for dowry. He admitted that Koushalya only confirmed him that she is in trouble but she never said anything about demand of dowry. He admitted that whenever he used to call the daughter and son-in-law, they both used to come willingly and happily. He admitted that when he asked Krishna Singh to allow his wife to be left at her parental house, he agreed to this suggestion. He admitted that Krishna and his father Puran had come to his house looking for Koushalya.
19. PW-1 admitted that at the time of preparation of Panchnama, he had admitted that as his daughter was not send to her parental home, therefore, out of pain, she committed suicide. This witness admitted that Koushalya was having trouble in her chest and stomach for which PW-1 used to take her for 'Jhadfook'. This witness after saying that Panchayat 6 was convened on account of demand of dowry, retracted his statement and said that Panchayat was never convened. He has admitted that his son-in-law respects him a lot. He never sits in front of him and never talks in front of him. He admitted that his wife used to visit daughter's matrimonial home at the interval of 10-15 days and used to stay there in the night.
20. PW-2 Charkhu admitted in his cross-examination that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. He admitted that he never narrated aspect of demand of dowry to any of the villagers. He admitted that Koushalya was suffering from acute stomach ache for which she was subjected to 'Jhadphook'. This witness admitted that appellant no. 2 Phoolmatiya and appellant no. 3 Ram Prasad were staying in Kararidolmanas whereas Koushalya and Krishna were living in Bhagwanpur. This witness also admitted that Ramprasad and Phoolmatiya never demanded any dowry. He admitted that status of both the families is equal.
21. PW-3 Shanti in her cross-examination admitted that in their community, it is the groom's side which gives foodgrains to the bride side. She admitted that accused had given 25 kurai rice and clothes in the marriage. She admitted that there was no demand of dowry by the accused person. There was no demand of dowry at any point of time. She admitted that Koushalya never said anything about demand of dowry or harassment to her. PW-4 Sushila in her cross-examination though 7 denied receiving 25 kurai of rice and 12 clothings but admitted that all the family members of Koushalya left for their work in the morning and after returning from work at 2-3 P.M. used to have their food served by Koushalya. She admitted that whenever she visited her daughter's home prior to the incident, her daughter had not narrated anything to her.
22. She admitted treatment of Koushalya for stomach ailment. She admitted that Koushalya was educated. She had never written any letter about demand of dowry. She admitted that her Samdhan and Samdhi did not ask for dowry from her.
23. PW-5 Gendabai/Chachi of Koushalya expressed her ignorance as regards Ex. D-3. However, she admitted that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry.
24. PW-6 Puran in his cross-examination admitted that Groom's side give grains to the bride side. He admitted that accused had brought three sarees at the time of marriage which are to be given to Aaji, Naani and Bua of the bride side. He admitted that accused had given jewellery to the bride and there was no discussion about dowry at the time of marriage. He admitted that accused never demanded any dowry in front of him and Koushalya never narrated any woes for dowry in the hands of the accused.
25. PW-7 Savitri admitted that she had never heard of any discord between Koushalya and Krishna. PW-8 Sushila friend of deceased Koushalya admitted in the cross-examination and also admitted in her 8 police statement D-5, that she had not mentioned that Koushalya used to tell her about harassment. This witness admitted that Babulal is her Mama and Koushalya is her cousin sister and she told that she never saw any dispute and discord between Koushalya and accused persons.
26. PW-9 Thakurniya maternal grandmother of Koushalya admitted in the cross-examination that for the omissions in the case diary statements D-6, she cannot give any explanation.
27. After appreciating the evidence and material which has come on record, it is evident that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story for demand of dowry or any cruelty meted out to the deceased Koushalya on account of demand of dowry. On the other hand, it is admitted that groom side had given dowry as per the customs in the tribal society. It has also come on record that Koushalya was suffering from stomach ailment for which she was frequently taken to Ojha for Jhadfook.
28. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan (supra) has placed reliance on this judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)8 SCC 62 wherein conviction under Section 306 of I.P.C. was quashed on the ground that allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.
29. It is held that there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence and conviction cannot be sustained without positive act on the part of 9 accused to instigate in committing suicide. When facts of the case of M.Mohan (supra) are examined in the light of the present case, then it is evident that facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.Mohan (supra).
30. When these judgments are taken into consideration, then it is evident that none of the ingredients under Section 107 of I.P.C. are made out so to demonstrate any abetment in the hands of the appellants.
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 has held that when neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted, then accused are entitled to acquittal.
32. In the present case, it is admitted that appellant no. 1 was living separately from appellant nos. 2 and 3 as is deposed by PW-2 Grandfather of deceased Koushalya.
33. In view of such facts and the evidence which has come on record, there is no material to support the findings of the learned trial Court, which are based on weak type of evidence.
34. In case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, in para 12 it is held that :-
"Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of 10 suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants are duly entitled to get the benefit of doubt in the present case.
36. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charge under section 306 of I.P.C. If they are in jail, they be released from the custody, if they are not required in any other case. If any fine amount is deposited by the accused persons, the same shall be returned to them.
37. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Vy/-
Digitally signed byVAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.05.09 18:41:42 +05'30'