Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Bhagwan Singh on 9 October, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh
and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P.
Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another)
1
Gwalior
9.10.2018
In M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017:
Shri Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Smt. Sangita Pachori, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
In M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 :
Smt. Sangita Pachori, learned Public Prosecutor for applicant/State.
None for respondents.
M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 There is delay of 36 days in filing leave application.
Condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A.No.7204/2018.
Taking into consideration the reasons which find mention in the application, sufficient cause is made out which prevented the applicant from filing the application.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 2 Consequently, delay is condoned.
I.A.No. 7204/2018 stands disposed of.
Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.8.2017 in Session Trial No.277/2010 recording acquittal of the respondent from the offence under sections 498A, 304B IPC for causing death of Varsha. Respondent no.1 and 2 are in-laws of the deceased. Co-accused Harvilas died during trial.
Whereas co-accused Dinesh Singh (Husband), Birbal Singh and Smt. Prabha were acquitted vide judgment dated 14.10.2011 which has attained finality.
The allegation against the accused persons was that due to the harassment meted out by them to Varsha for not bringing the dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- Varsha died due to hanging.
The prosecution was launched with the complaint by Kok Singh (PW.1) father of the deceased that on THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 3 27.5.2010 when he went to meet his daughter at her matrimonial house, he was told that she was sleeping in her room on the first floor. When he went there he saw the door of the room open and found his daughter hanging from the ceiling. After recording of merg (Ex.P.1) the matter was reported to Police Station Kotwali. After necessary investigation the matter was committed for trial against Dinesh Singh, Birbal Singh, Smt. Prabha, Bhagwan Singh, Chhoti Bai and Harvilas.
Initially as Bhagwan Singh, Chhoti Bai and Harvilas (since deceased) were absconding. Dinesh Singh, Birbal Singh and Smt. Prabha were tried and acquitted on 18.10.2010. Whereas the trial against present respondents commenced after their arrest. The respondents abjured their guilt. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Kok Singh (PW.1), Dhanwanti (PW.2), Udaiveer Singh (PW.3), father, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 4 mother and brother, respectively of the deceased and Jitendra Singh (PW.6) cousin of the deceased, Pritam Singh (PW.4) and Jabar Singh (PW.7) uncle of the deceased.
The Trial Court found major contradictions in the testimony of Kok Singh (PW.1) in the Court which did not match with his statements Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 before the police and in merg intimation (Ex.P.1). Similar contradictions were noticed in the testimony of Pritam Singh (PW.4) and Jabar Singh (PW.7) when they were confronted with their statements to Police, Ex.D.6 and Ex.D.5. Even the presence of Jitendra Singh (PW.6) at the house of the deceased on 27.5.2010 was not found free from doubt. The Trial Court found:
"31- dksdflag ¼v0lk0&1½ }kjk vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa tks ;g crk;k gS fd ] fnukad 27-05-10 vFkkZr ftl fnukad dks e`rdk dh e`R;q gqbZ gS] ml fnukad dks fnu ds djhc 1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 5 cts mldk Hkkatk ftrsUnz e`rdk dh llqjky fuea=.k dk dkMZ nsus x;k Fkk vkSj mls e`rdk ls feyus ugha fn;k x;k rFkk mlds llqj us dgk fd] e`rdk mij lks jgh gSA tc mls feyus ugha fn;k rks 'kadk gksus ij ftrsUnz us dksdflag dks Qksu yxk;k rc og e`rdk dh llqjky x;k A bl fcanq ij tcjflag ¼v0lk0&7½ dk dguk gS fd] ftrsUnz dk e`rdk ds ;gkW dkMZ nsus tkuk vkSj mls e`rdk ls ugha feyus nsus okyh ckr dksdflag us mls cqykdj crkbZ Fkh rc lansg gksus ij og e`rdk dh llqjky x;k FkkA bl rF; ds lanHkZ esa ;gkW ;g Li"V dj nsuk egRoiw.kZ gS fd ] mDr ftrsUnzflag ¼v0lk0&6½ ds :i esa U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gqvk gS fdarq mlus fnukad 27-05-10 dh mijksDr ?kVuk ds ckjs esa vius U;k;ky;hu dFku esa dqN ugha crk;k gS vkSj u gh ;g crk;k gS fd] og fnukad 27-05-10 dks e`rdk dh llqjky x;k FkkA vfHk;kstu }kjk bl fcUnq ij ftrsUnzflag dks i{k fojks/kh ?kksf"kr Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k dh foospuk ds nkSjku ,slk dksbZ eksckbZy uEcj Hkh ugha crk;k x;k gS fd] ftlls ftrsUnz }kjk dksdflag dks fnukad 27-05-10 dks lwpuk nsdj mijksDr rF; crk;s gksa u gh ,slh dksbZ dkWy fMVsy fjdkWMZ izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlls fd] dksdflag ,oa tcjflag }kjk vius dFkuksa esa crk;s x;s mijksDr rF;ksa dh dksbZ iqf"V dkjd lk{; Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ftrsUnzflag dk fnukad 27-05-10 dks e`rdk ds ?kj dksMZ nsus tkuk vkSj e`rdk dh llqjkyokyksa }kjk mls e`rdk ls feyus ugah nsuk rFkk bldh lwpuk ftrsUnz }kjk dksdflag dks nsus ds rF; ds ckjs esa dksdflag ¼v0lk0&1½ ,oa THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 6 tcj flag ¼v0lk0&7½ }kjk fn;s x;s dFku dk va'k Hkh vk/kkj ;ksX; ugha gS vFkkZr fnukad 27-05-2010 dks vfHk;kstu dgkuh esa crk;k x;k leLr ?kVukdze lansg dh ifjf/k esa vk tkrk gSA"
The statement of Kok Singh (PW.1) of being given the call by the deceased in the close proximity of the incident was found to be not proved by the prosecution beyond doubt (Please see paragraph 33 wherein the trial Court has recorded specific findings to that effect).
After analyzing the evidence led by prosecution witnesses, the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that there was dowry demand and that the deceased was harassed by the accused persons. The conclusion drawn by learned Trial Court in paragraph 44 of the judgment being based on indepth analysis of the material evidence warrants no interference.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 7 As regard to offence under section 304B IPC, true it is that the word "shall" used under section 113-B Evidence Act makes it mandatory on part of Court to presume that death had been committed by person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. However, for the operation of presumption as to dowry death the burden is on the prosecution to prove that "soon before her death" victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in relation to demand for dowry (Hira Lal and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865, Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 1454). It is held in Baljeet Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1714 that in order to attract the provisions under Section 113-B of Evidence Act the deceased must be subjected to cruelty on harassment on the basis of dowry soon before the death within 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 8 years of marriage. Mere death within 7 years of marriage it is held, alone is insufficient to raise presumption under section 113-B Evidence Act.
In the present case the prosecution having failed to bring home the ingredients of Section 113-B Evidence Act led the Trial Court record the following findings:
"46- vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls e`R;q ds Bhd iwoZ e`rdk ds lkFk ngst dh ekWx dks ysdj dh tk jgh dwzjrk ,oa mRihM+u ds laca/k esa tks lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS mlds mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ls izdj.k esa ;g rF; fd] e`R;q ls ,d fnu iwoZ e`rdk us vius firk dksdflag dks Qksu ij ckr djds mlds lkFk ngst dh ekWx ds dkj.k dh tk jgh dzwjrk ds ckjs esa crk;k Fkk] e`rdk ds eesjs HkkbZ ftrsUnz dk e`R;q fnukad dks fookg dk fuea=.k nsus e`rdk dh llqjky tkuk ,oa ogkW ij Hkxoku flag dk lafnX/k vkpj.k ns[kus ds rF; ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr ugah gSA vfHk;kstu dgkuh vuqlkj e`rdk ds fookg ds ckn dqN fnu e`rdk viuh llqjky vPNh rjg jgh vkSj ckn esa mls ngst dh ekWx dks ysdj ijs'kku fd;k x;k fdarq vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa }kjk mDr ngst dh ekWx dks fookg ds csyk ds le; ls gh izkjEHk gksus ,oa ml dkj.k ls e`rdk dks ijs'kku djus ds dFku fd;s gSa tks fd] izdj.k THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 9 dh fo"k;&oLrq ds laca/k esa lkjoku vfHko`f) dh Js.kh esa vkrs gq;s vk/kkj ;ksX; ugah gSA e`rdk ds lkFk lrr~ dh tk jgh ngst dh ekax dks ysdj dzwjrk ds rF; dh fofufnZ"V le; dh lk{; vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA e`rdk }kjk izFke ckj ngst dh ekWx dk rF; vius ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks dc crk;k x;k bl laca/k esa Hkh vfHk;kstu lk{; laxr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk izfrosnu ls iwoZ ngst dh ekWx dsk ysdj fdlh ls dksbZ f'kdk;r vFkok lekt] fcjknjh esa ppkZ dh Hkh lk{; ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs ekStwn ugha gSA vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds vuqlkj e`rdk fookg ds ckn viuh ethZ ls vius ek;ds o llqjky vkrh&tkrh jgh gS vkSj mldk ifr mls ek;ds ls llqjky ys tkrk jgk gSA vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s dFku tujy ,oa osx izd`fr ds gSa] bu dFkuksa esa e`R;q ds Bhd iwoZ fof'k"V fnu] fnukad o le; dk mYys[k ugha vk;k gS fd] rc&rc vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk e`rdk dks ngst dh ekWx dks ysdj izrkfM+r fd;k x;k ftlls fd] e`R;q ds Bhd iwoZ vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk e`rdk dks bl gn rd izrkf+M+r djus ds rF; dh Bksl lk{; vfHkys[k ij ugah gS ftlds dkj.k mlus QkWlh yxkdj vkRekgR;k dj yh gksA vfHk;kstu lk{; ds mijksDr ewY;kadu ls izdj.k esa ngst dh ekWx ,oa izrkM+uk ds rF; dh ,slh dksbZ Bksl lk{; ugha gS fd] ;g >xM+k bl gn rd ?kkrd Fkk fd] e`frdk dks blds dkj.k gh ;g extreme step mBkuk iM+k gksA"
These findings when tested on material evidence on record are not found to be perverse.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24988/2017 (Kok Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) and M.Cr.C.No.24888/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and another) 10 Consequently, the application for leave to appeal being sans merit, is dismissed.
M.Cr.C.No.No.24888/2017
The State and its functionaries seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.8.2017 in Session Trial No.277/2010 recording acquittal of the respondents.
For the reasons in M.Cr.C.No.24988/2018 present application is also dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
Pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR
2018.10.22 13:01:26
+05'30'