Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Radheshyam Agrawal And ... vs State Of M.P. on 6 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)MPLJ423
JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J.
1. By impugned judgment dated 14-8-1997 in Sessions Trial No. 83/97, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, Distt. Raigarh, has convicted each of the accused/appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code. Each of them have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months for offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code has been imposed.
2. The prosecution case stated in brief is that deceased Sangeeta was married to accused/appellant No. 1 Ramesh Kumar in December 1995. The accused/appellant No. 2 Radheshyam Agrawal and accused/appellant No. 3 Leelawati are the parents of accused/appellant No. 1 Ramesh Kumar while accused/appellant No. 4 Durga is his sister. After her marriage Sangeeta started residing in her matrimonial home at Saraipani with the accused/appellants. Sangeeta on 27-9-1996, committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.
3. According to the prosecution case, after the marriage when Sangeeta returned to her parental home, she informed her parents that accused/appellants had complained that the articles given in dowry were of inferior quality, and they used to taunt her in that regard. Thereafter, deceased Sangeeta again went back to her matrimonial home and when subsequently came back to her parents, she informed them that the accused/appellants are demanding Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie in dowry. Even subsequently thereafter, when deceased Sangeeta visited her parents, she would complain regarding the demand as above, by the accused/appellant. She would express her apprehension that in case the above demand was not met, she would be killed.
4. On 22-9-1996 Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) mother of deceased Sangeeta went along with her son Rakesh (P.W.4) to bring deceased Sangeeta with them, upon which accused/appellant No. 3 Leelawati demanded a mixie and Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) in cash and told them that unless the above demand was met, deceased Sangeeta would not be sent to her parents' home. Sangeeta was in great distress and complained regarding harassment by the accused/appellants.
5. Thereafter, on 27-9-1996 Roshanlal (P.W.10) informed Kunjbihari (P.W.I) Kaushalaya Bai (P.W.2) and others that Sangeeta has expired. Kunjbihari (P.W.I), Kaushalaya Bai (P.W.2) and others went to Saraipani. On seeing the dead body of deceased Sangeeta, they noticed that it had turned bluish, and froth and blood were coming out of the nose and mouth of the deceased. Kunjbihari (P.W.I) lodged the report of the incident as per (Ex.P/12). Merg intimation was recorded as per Ex.P/1. After the enquiry on the said merg intimation, First Information Report (Ex.P/12) was recorded by the Investigation Officer D. P. Thakur (P.W. 12) and offence was registered.
6. The inquest report (Ex.P/3) on the dead body of Sangeeta was prepared. It was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Smt. V. Bakhla (P.W. 11) conducted post-mortem examination. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P/11) death was suspected to be on account of poisoning. Some of the letters written by deceased Sangeeta were seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P.2) during investigation, including a letter written by the accused/ appellant No. 4 Durga to her sister Pushpa (Ex.P/2-A) and another letter (Ex.P/2-B) written by the deceased Sangeeta. After concluding other usual formalities during investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants.
7. The learned trial Court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons as well as co-accused Pushpa and Shrikrishna. However, co-accused Pushpa and Shrikrishna were acquitted by the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court held that the charges as against the accused/appellants were proved beyond reasonable doubt. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced therefor, as has been mentioned earlier.
8. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants has mainly urged that the statements of prosecution witnesses including Kunjbihari (P.W.I) and Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) - the parents of deceased Sangeeta, do not disclose that there was demand of dowry, or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, and therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, was not justified.
9. However, against this the learned counsel for the respondent/State has urged that there is overwhelming evidence against the accused/appellants. The learned trial Court on assessment and appreciation of evidence placed on record, has rightly concluded that the accused/appellants committed offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Their conviction as well as sentence as imposed is just and proper.
10. The statement of Kunjbihari (P.W.I) and Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) - the parents of deceased Sangeeta, as well as statement of Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) - her brother, would indicate that deceased Sangeeta was married to the accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar in December 1995, and she died after about 9 (nine) months of her marriage. The statement of Dr. Smt. V. Bakhla (P.W.9) and her post-mortem report (Ex.P/11) would indicate that the death took place on account of suspected poisoning, and thus her death was not under normal circumstances. These facts are also not challenged either in the trial or in this appeal.
11. The allegations of the prosecution in this case are that the accused/appellants used to demand Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie towards dowry. The statement of Kunjbihari (P.W.I) - the father of deceased Sangeeta in para 3 is that whenever deceased Sangeeta used to visit them she would tell that her in- laws are demanding Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie, upon which he had assured deceased Sangeeta that the demand shall be met.
12. Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) - the mother of deceased has also stated to the same effect, and in her examination-in-chief, she has stated that when Sangeeta visited them for the first time, after three days of her marriage, she had told them that her in laws are taunting her regarding the inferior quality of the articles given in dowry. Thereafter, when she came after a month, she informed them that a demand of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) and a mixie is being made by her parents in-law and her husband. She states that when deceased Sangeeta again visited them after about 4-5 months, she again informed them about the above demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a mixie by her in- laws. However, during cross-examination in para 12 of her statement, she has admitted that for the first time on 22-9-1996, when they went to bring Sangeeta, the accused/appellants had demanded from them Rs. 20,000/- and a mixie and not earlier. It may be noticed in the above context that in her police diary statement (Ex.D/6), she has not stated that when they went to bring Sangeeta with them on 22-9-1996, the demand as above was made.
13. It may thus be noticed that firstly the statement of Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) given during trial is not supported by her police diary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, secondly if her statement as above is accepted, the same would negative her earlier statement that the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) and a mixie was being made from the very beginning.
14. It may also be noticed that Bhagwati (P.W.3) and Roshanlal (P.W. 10) who are the sister and brother-in-law of deceased Sangeeta do not state that the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) and mixie was made by the accused/appellants. Bhagwati (P.W.3) states that deceased Sangeeta only complained to her that the family members of her matrimonial home were not pleased with the articles given in dowry. If the demand by the accused/appellants of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and mixie was being made, the deceased Sangeeta who appears to be having close contact with her sister Bhagwati (P.W.3) would have naturally told so to the latter, but deceased Sangeeta does not appear to have done so. Thus, the statements of Kaushalya (P.W.2) and Kunjbihari (P.W. 1) in that regard have not been supported by the statement of Bhagwati (P.W.3) and are thus rendered doubtful.
15. It may also be noticed in the above connection that the report of the incident was lodged by Kunjbihari (P.W. 1) with the police. The said report was recorded as merg intimation as per Ex.P/1 In that merg intimation, no complaint regarding the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie as dowry was made. In fact, in the said merg intimation (Ex.P/1), it has been specifically stated that about 4-5 days back Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) - the mother of deceased Sangeeta, and her son Rakesh (P.W.4) had visited deceased Sangeeta then she was all right. In that report (Ex.P/1) a doubt was expressed that deceased Sangeeta was done to death by administering poison to her. As Kunjbihari (P.W.1) had gone to the extent of expressing his suspicion in her report (Ex.P/1) of Sangeeta having been murdered by her in- laws he would certainly have reported therein that there was demand of dowry by the in-laws of the deceased, had it been a fact. However, he has not done so. Moreover, Kunjbihari (P.W.I) has admitted in para 18 of his statement that he had not stated in his case diary statement that the accused/appellants were harassing the deceased.
16. Therefore, since Kunjbihari (P.W.I) when he lodged report (Ex.P/1), and also at the time when his case diary statement was recorded, did not lodge, he did not allege regarding the demand of dowry or harassment meted out to the deceased Sangeeta; his statement during trial to the above effect becomes doubtful and does not appear to be credible.
17. Rakesh (P.W.4) has stated that after 1 1/2 months his brother Manoj Kumar went to bring his sister Sangeeta from Saraipani, upon which deceased Sangeeta had told him that her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. He states that again three months thereafter when his younger brother Manoj Kumar went to bring deceased Sangeeta, she had told him regarding the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie. It may be noted that statement of Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) does not disclose that deceased Sangeeta had told him anything regarding the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) or a mixie. His statement is that he was informed about such a demand by Manoj Kumar. But Manoj Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the statement of Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) in the absence of statement of his brother Manoj Kumar is only a hear-say evidence and cannot be accepted. Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) has also stated that his brother-in-law Roshanlal (P.W.10) had told him that they gave less dowry and the articles given in dowry, were of inferior quality. However, Roshanlal (P.W. 10) has not stated a word in this regard and has thus not corroborated the above statement of Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4). Therefore, the statement of Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) as above, would not establish demand of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie towards dowry.
18. It may also be noticed that Bhagwati (P.W.3) has admitted that in the marriage of her sister Sangeeta she had given a mixie as gift; and that deceased Sangeeta had told her that she would take the mixie to her in-laws' home at Saraipani, after electricity was fitted there. Now if mixie was already given by her sister as a present to deceased Sangeeta, and since she had not taken it with her, as there was no electricity at her matrimonial house, at Saraipani, there was no possibility that the appellants would have made demand of mixie. Therefore, the statement of Kunjbihari (P.W.I), Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2) and Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) that deceased Sangeeta used to complain about the demand of mixie by the accused/appellants, stands falsified.
19. Thus, the oral evidence regarding the demand as above is not fully satisfactory. Therefore, documentary evidence mainly consisting of letters produced in the case, on behalf of the prosecution as well as by the accused/appellant in defence, deserve consideration.
20. It may be noted that letters (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4) are written by deceased Sangeeta. The authorship of the above letters is admitted by her father Kunjbihari (P.W. 1) in para 15 of his statement. A letter (Ex.D/5) was written by Bhagwati (P.W.3) the sister of deceased Sangeeta to the latter, as is admitted by Bhagwati (P.W.3) in para 3 of her statement. Similarly, letters (Ex.D/7 to Ex.D/11) are written by Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) - brother of deceased Sangeeta, which are addressed to accused/- appellant No. 2 Radheshyam Agrawal and accused/appellant No. 3 Leelawati - the parents in- law of deceased Sangeeta. Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) in para 15 of his statement has admitted to have written those letters. Letters (Ex.D/15) to (Ex.D/29) are written by Sunita (D.W.3) - another sister of deceased Sangeeta, who has been examined by the accused/appellants in defence. Letter (Ex.D/31) is written by Khushbu Agrawal (D.W.4) - wife of Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4)
21. Perusal of the above letters by close relatives of deceased Sangeeta as noticed above, does not even faintly suggest, that there was any demand of dowry or there was any dissatisfaction, expressed with regard to the articles given in dowry. Those letters, written on different points of time, on the contrary indicate that deceased Sangeeta was quite happy and satisfied after her marriage, in her matrimonial home. The letter (Ex.D/1) written by deceased Sangeeta to her husband - the accused/appellant No. 1 Ramesh, is dated 18-2- 1996. It discloses that they had very cordial relations with each other. Similar is the case with other letters written by deceased Sangeeta to her sisters-in-law accused/appellants Durga and Seema.
22. None of the above letters even remotely hint, discontent of Sangeeta in her matrimonial home and do not suggest that she had any complaint against her in-laws. It may also be noticed that not even a single letter has been produced by the prosecution, which contains any mention regarding the demand of dowry by the accused/appellants or their dissatisfaction with the dowry given in marriage with the deceased Sangeeta. This is a strong circumstance which negatives the oral statements given by Bhagwati (P.W.3) and Kunjbihari (P.W.I) that the accused appellants had demanded Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie towards dowry.
23. In Rajneesh Tandon v.State of Punjab, 1995 S.C.C. (Cri.) 817, which was also a case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, it was observed that the letters written by mother, brother and two sisters of deceased, disproved the allegation of cruelty and harassment. Similarly, the letters addressed to the deceased or to the mother of the accused-appellant did not make any reference of alleged cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased, either by the accused- appellant or any of his relatives. The tenor of the letters unmistakably showed that there was cordial relationship between the deceased and the appellant, and that the deceased was happy with the family members of the appellant. In that case, no letter written by the deceased was produced. It was observed therein that the letters written by the deceased are vital for the reason that had the deceased been subjected to cruelty and harassment, she would have definitely mentioned the same in some of her letters. The non-production of any letters written by deceased to the family members was held to be fatal to the prosecution.
24. Similarly, in Meka Ramaswamy v. Dassari Mohan and Ors., AIR 1998 S.C.W. 489 there was no mention of demand of dowry or ill-treatment in letter written by deceased to her friend. It was held that the oral testimony of parents of deceased was not reliable.
25. More or less similar is the position in this case wherein the deceased had in all the letters written by her expressed affection and cordiality towards her husband - the accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar, as well as other members of his family. The tenor of letters written by her show that she was happy and satisfied in her matrimonial home. She has made no complaints therein regarding demand of dowry or harassment to her. The letters written by her brother Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) on various occasions also do not in any manner mention anything about demand of dowry etc., Similar is the position with the letters written by Sunita (D.W. 3) to her sister addressed either individually to her or jointly to her and her husband i.e. accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar. From all the letters placed on record, there is no mention of any discord or disharmony between the two families. Had there been any cause for dissatisfaction, it would have found some reflection at least, in the letters produced in the case. The absence of any such reference certainly negatives the allegation of the prosecution that the accused/appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie.
26. It may also be noticed that in some of the letters, there was some reference of some super natural happenings in the house-hold of Bhagwati Bai (P.W.3) - the sister of deceased Sangeeta. There is also some reference of 'Jhad-Foonk' being held, presumably in connection with the above super natural occurrences. It may also he noticed that deceased Sangeeta had suspected pseudo-pregnancy, but later it was discovered that she in fact was not pregnant.
27. The super natural occurrences in the house-hold of Bhagwati Bai (P.W.3) is mentioned in letter (Ex.D/5) written by her to deceased Sangeeta. The letter (Ex.D/11) written by Rakesh Agarwal (P.W.4) to the accused/appellant No. 2 Radheshyam and accused/appellant No. 3 Leelawati - the in-laws of deceased. Sangeeta also contains reference about the sorcery (Jhad-Foonk) by some local sorcerer (Guniya) and a 'Pandit'. Similar indication is found in letter (Ex.D/19) written by Sunita (D.W.3) to deceased Sangeeta and accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar; in which reference to mental tension of deceased Sangeeta and accused/appellant No. 1 Ramesh Kumar finds place. Letter (Ex.D/20) written by Sunita (D.W.3) mentions that a cut in the 'Sari' was for some other cause and not on account of super- natural happenings. Letter (Ex.D/24) also refers to pregnancy of deceased Sangeeta which ultimately was found to be pseudo- pregnancy. Letter (Ex.D/3) written by deceased Sangeeta mentions about some ailments of deceased while letter (Ex.D/30) written by Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.4) is regarding some 'Pooja' performed by a 'Pandit' and asking her whether she got better or not thereafter.
28. Therefore, from the above letters, it would appear that there were some extra-ordinary and super natural occurrences in the house-hold of Bhagwati Bai (P.W.3) and some clothes were found to be cut, and the curse was sought to be dispelled by exercise of sorcery 'Jhad-Foonk' by a 'Guniya'. Though it is not very clearly mentioned in the letters, but it appears thereform that deceased Sangeeta was also in some way suspected to be affected by such super natural occurrences and 'Pooja' was got performed. It also appears that the deceased Sangeeta and her family members on either side believed that she was pregnant, but ultimately they were disillusioned as the pregnancy was discovered to be false. The deceased was suffering from some ailment for which 'Pooja' was also got performed by a 'Pandit'.
29. Though the prosecution has failed to bring all the facts in the above regard and the accused/appellants have also denied knowledge about any such super-natural occurrences, but the letters clearly indicate that the truth was otherwise. Deceased Sangeeta suffered from some physical or psychological problem regarding which 'Pooja' was performed. Though it cannot be said with certainty, but there is material as above on record, to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the suicide by deceased Sangeeta may possibly have something to do with the above circumstances. Be that as it may, it is abundantly clear that none of the letters produced on behalf of the prosecution or by the accused/appellants in defence, disclose that there was any demand of dowry or that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for or in connection with demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a mixie as is the prosecution case.
30. It may also be noticed that the accused/appellants have examined Sunita (D.W.3) and Khushbu (D.W.4) - the sister and sister-in-law of deceased Sangeeta, respectively in their defence. The above witnesses, who are the closest relatives of deceased from her paternal side, have not stated a word about any demand of dowry or harassment meted out to deceased Sangeeta. Moreover, the very fact that the accused/appellants dared to call them as defence witnesses, is an eloquent proof that the prosecution case regarding demand of dowry and harassment to deceased Sangeeta is not true. Sunita (D.W.3) and Khushbu (D.W. 4) who are not only the closest relatives of deceased Sangeeta, but in view of the fact that they are of the same age group as that of the deceased and with whom the latter had very cordial relations; therefore, they would have known better about all the happenings and circumstances of deceased Sangeeta in her matrimonial home, than anybody else. However, none of the above witnesses i.e. Sunita (D.W.3) and Khushbu (D.W.4) have spoken a word regarding the harassment or demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie from the deceased Sangeeta. This clearly shows that the prosecution allegations in that regard are not true.
31. Accordingly, it may be noticed that in his report (Ex.P/1) Kunjbihari (P.W.I) did not mention anything about the demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased, and had in fact disclosed therein that 4-5 days prior to the incident there was nothing wrong in the house-hold of deceased Sangeeta. He has also admitted in para 18 of his statement that he did not disclose about the harassment of deceased Sangeeta when his statement was recorded by the Police. This negatives his subsequent version and assertion during trial that the deceased complained to him about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie by the appellants. Since the letters do not contain any mention of demand of dowry or harassment, the oral evidence in that regard led by the prosecution cannot be relied upon. Similarly, as noticed earlier, the mixie had already given to deceased Sangeeta and she had not taken it with her, because there was no electricity in her matrimonial home at Saraipani, and intended to take it after the electricity fitting was done. That negatives the assertion of demand of mixie. Since the demand of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and a mixie has been clubbed by Kunjbihari (P.W.I) and his wife Kaushalya Bai (P.W.2), and since there was no question of demand being made of mixie, the statement as above by the above witnesses appears to be unreliable.
32. In the foregoing circumstances and in view of the basic infirmities, and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, it cannot be held that there was any demand of dowry or harassment and cruelty meted out to deceased Sangeeta for or in connection with the said demand. In view of the above, finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court ignoring the above vital aspects of the prosecution evidence, does not appear to be justified.
33 The appeal therefore deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of all the accused/appellants are set aside. They stand acquitted. They be released forthwith, if not required to be detained for any other case.