Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Dharmendra on 4 September, 2014
Author: S.K. Palo
Bench: S.K. Palo
1 Cr.A. No.647/2011
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. GANGELE &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. PALO:
Criminal Appeal No. 647/2011
APPELLANT: Narendra Kumar Jatav, Age-43 years,
Occupation Service, R/o Dwarika Puri,
Karondi, Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (MP)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Dharmendra S/o Hari Singh Khankar,
Age-23 years, R/o Karondi Shivpuri (MP)
2. State of M.P. Through P.S. Kotwali District
Shivpuri (MP)
M.Cr.C. No. 7861/2011
APPELLANT: State of Madhya Pradesh through Police
Station Kotwali District Shivpuri (MP)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: Dharmendra S/o Hari Singh Khankar,
Age-23 years, R/o Karondi, Shivpuri (MP)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the appellant. (Cr.A. No. 647/2011)
Shri Suresh Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent-Dharmendra.
Shri L.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(04.09.2014 ) PER JUSTICE S.K. PALO:-
Regard being had similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously and common judgment is being passed.
(2) Narendra Kumar, the appellant, father of deceased Babita aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 51/2011, by which the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent No. 1-Dharmendra under Section 306 of IPC and alternatively under Section 302 of IPC, has filed this appeal under Section 2 Cr.A. No.647/2011 372 of Cr.P.C.
(3) The State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station, Shivpuri, has also filed this M.Cr.C. under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal, aggrieved by the above judgment of acquittal.
(4) The case of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court was that on 24.12.2010, at about 07:50 P.M. Dr. V.C. Goyal, Medical Officer of District Hospital Shivpuri informed the Police Post (Police Chowki) in the Hospital Campus that at 03:30 PM, Babita, daughter of Narendra Jatav, aged 20 years' resident of village Karondi, was admitted into the hospital for consuming poison. On the basis of this, police tried to record the dying declaration but the Medical Officer concerned informed the police that the patient was not in a position to give her statement. She was referred to Gwalior for further treatment. On the way she passed away. After due process, postmortem was performed by the Medical Officer of the district Hospital and her viscera was kept intact for chemical examination. As per the examination report, insecticide aluminum phosphide was found in the viscera. Merg No. 051/10 was registered and subsequently Crime No. 87/2010 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri. After due investigation and recording the statement of appellant Narendra Jatav (father of the deceased) and Saroj (mother of the deceased) and Mahesh (husband of the deceased), a criminal case under Section 306 of IPC was registered against the respondent Dharmendra.
(5) It has been alleged that before her marriage, Babita had relationship with the accused Dharmendra, resident of village Karondi, district Shivpuri and they were meeting secretly. However, marriage of Babita was solemnized with Mahesh on 01.06.2009, who is a resident of Gwalior. Even after her marriage, she had relationship with the respondent Dharmendra. On 10.05.2010, Babita eloped with Dharmendra taking with her Rs.69,000/- cash and ornaments worth Rs.80,000/-. They stayed at Kota, Rajsthan for about 3 months 13 days. On 24.08.2010, she returned home. Cash and ornaments were taken away by the accused Dharmendra.
3 Cr.A. No.647/2011Her father and the family members of the Dharmendra had gone to Kota and brought her back. When she had left for Kota, report was lodged by the appellant Narendra Kumar at Police Chowki Physical (Shivpuri). (6) On 24.12.2010, younger sister Chanda informed her father appellant Narendra by phone that Babita is ill. Therefore, Narendra returned from the office, took Babita to the district Hospital, Shivpuri along with her mother Saroj and neighbor Gopal. Babita was referred to Gwalior at 05:30 PM, when she was being taken to Gwalior by ambulance, near Mehona, she expired. Therefore, they returned to Shivpuri. It was narrated by the appellant Narendra that Babita wanted to go to her in-laws house but accused Dharmendra was blackmailing and threatening her. In this regard, the accused Dharmendra brought poison and handed it over to Babita and told her to consume the same and die. As per the husband Mahesh, the deceased had relationship with the accused Dharmendra, therefore, she did not want to go to her in-laws house.
(7) After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 306 of IPC.
(8) Learned Trial Court framed charge for offence under section 306 of IPC in alternative under Section 302 of IPC and explained the same. The accused Dharmendra abjured guilt. He claimed that he had relationship with the deceased Babita and she was living with him as his wife. Her parents got her marriage without her will. Her parents and members of her family administered some poison and killed her.
(9) Learned Trial Court after adducing the evidence, held the accused not guilty under Section 306 of IPC and alternative under Section 302 of IPC.
(10) The appellant Narendra Kumar, father of the deceased has assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds. It has been claimed that the learned Trial Court, even having cogent evidence, has acquitted the respondent Dharmendra. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The prosecution witnesses have narrated the story and supported 4 Cr.A. No.647/2011 the prosecution version. The respondent No. 1 - Dharmendra, in spite of the fact that deceased was a married woman, forced her to go to Kota and forced her to consume poison and supplied the bottle of poison, therefore, facilitated by his act to abet the suicide.
(11) The appellant / State has also made some allegations in the leave to appeal memo and alleged that the respondent was blackmailing the deceased Babita, because of which she has committed suicide. The statements of her father and mother have been very clear, in which, they have narrated that one day prior to the incident, accused Dharmendra had given a bottle poison to the deceased. The husband of the deceased Mahesh examined as PW-3 has also corroborated this version. After performing the postmortem, Dr. O.P. Sharma (PW-6) has reported that death was caused due to failure of respiration and cardio-respiratory failure. The medical examination report of viscera, also found corroborated this version and aluminum phosphide has been found to have consume by the deceased. (12) We have heard the counsel at length and perused the record. (13) There is no direct evidence of providing the insecticide to the deceased by the respondent No. 1 Dharmendra. It has been narrated that deceased was being blackmailed by the respondent Dharmendra, because of which, she was remaining upset. But, what type of blackmailing was being done, has not been explained. It is admitted by Narendra the appellant (PW-1) that Babita did not want to live with her husband. When he reached home after receiving the phone call from the younger sister Chanda, Babita told her that she was having ''acute burning'' in her stomach. He understood that she has consumed poison because he found the bottle nearby. Saroj (PW-2) mother of the deceased has also agreed that Babita was meeting with the respondent Dharmendra secretly before her marriage. Even after her marriage, she eloped with the accused Dharmendra to Kota, Rajsthan and stayed there 3 and ½ months. She also admitted that both of them were loving each other. In her cross- examination also, she admits that they have not lodged any report regarding 5 Cr.A. No.647/2011 the so called threat of accused Dharmendra.
(14) Mahesh (PW-3), the husband of the deceased, has stated that it was told to him by her mother-in-law and father-in-law that Dharmendra had given the poison bottle to Babita. In his cross-examination, Mahesh admits that Babita had relationship with the respondent Dharmendra. After his marriage, he came to know about this illicit relationship. The cousin brother Jugal Kishore (PW-4) also admits that he was with the deceased at the time of her treatment, doctor did not ask anything to her. Babita was only saying that her stomach is "burning". He also admits that deceased Babita had illicit relationship with the accused prior to her marriage. Lalchand Jain (PW-7), an independent witness, claims that it was in his knowledge that Dharmendra and Babita were meeting with each other. Both of them were coming to his shop for purchasing of articles. He also admits that Babita and her father were often quarreling. (15) Accused Dharmendra examined himself as defence witness and suggested that Babita was married to him. The affidavit executed by Babita (Ex. D-1) in this regard and Babita was pregnant and gave birth to a boy. At that time, her parents did not come. It was he, who looked after Babita. Babita was living with him at Kota, Rajasthan. Her father had come to take her. Her father told Babita to accompany him and she will be sent back to Kota later but he did not send her. Father of Babita wanted her to live with Mahesh, whereas Babita did not want to go to live with Mahesh. Therefore, her father used to beat her. This is the reason for which, she committed suicide.
(16) The learned Trial Court having examined the above evidence passed the impugned order. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, it is found that the evidence of providing poison or material for committing the suicide was not available, the reason for committing suicide was not allowing the deceased to live with the accused respondent Dharmendra. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the offence under section 306 of IPC or in alternative under section 302 of IPC. Therefore, 6 Cr.A. No.647/2011 we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2011.
(17) For the reasons mentioned above, criminal appeal filed under section 372 of Cr.P.C. and the leave to appeal under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. fails and are hereby disallowed.
(S.K. Gangele) (S.K. Palo)
Judge Judge
(abhi)