Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shantibai @ Bhatoribai vs State Of M.P. on 29 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: II(1999)DMC386
JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.
1. Appellant Shantibai has been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by her daughter-in-law and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. Deceased Meenadevi was married to Rajkumar, son of the appellant on 19.4.1986, and she committed suicide by burning herself on 25.5.1986, that is, within 35 days of her marriage.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused repeatedly taunted Meenadevi for bringing inferior quality of sarees from her mother's house and uttered that she was incompetent to do house- hold work and she and her mother were tonahi and they brought bad luck for her son Rajkumar who started suffering from kidney disease. Meenadevi made dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate and the Doctor. She had complained to her mother and brother also.
4. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court after an exhaustive and painstaking analysis of the evidence on record held that the appellant abetted the commission of suicide by her daughter-in-law.
5. In this appeal the commission of suicide by Meenadevi within 35 days of her marriage with Rajkumar is not disputed. It is argued that the acts attributed to the appellant do not constitute abetment.
6. Ex. P. 5 is the dying declaration recorded by Mr. D.V. Sharma (PW 5), the Naib-Tehsildar and the Executive Magistrate on 25.5.1986 at 7.20 a.m. after it was certified by Dr. G.L. Wadhwani (PW 7), that Meenadevi was in mentally sound condition to give her statement. According to this dying declaration she poured kerosene on herself and set her on fire because her mother-in-law used to say that she has not brought good sarees and she is tonahi. She used to say that her arrival in her house is inauspicious as since then her son is ailing. She used to quarrel everyday. The statement of the deceased was also recorded on the same date at 5.30 a.m. by Dr. G.L. Wadhwani (PW 7) and that is also substantially to the same effect. That is Ex. P. 13.
7. Mohanlal Agarwal (PW 2) is brother of the deceased. He has deposed that his sister was having a glum face and he asked her what was the matter. She d is closed to him that her mother-in-law was repeatedly saying that she has brought inferior quality of sarees with her and she does not know house-hold work. He consoled her that things would be all right with the passage of time. After a few days he went to her on learning that she was unhappy. She told him that her mother-in- law says that her mother is tonahi and her husband is not well since the time he came back from her place. Sitaram (PW 3) is father of the deceased. He has also corroborated the evidence of his son Mohanlal (PW 2). It is not disputed that Rajkumar also died after the death of Meenadevi due to kidney disease.
8. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the words and conduct attributed to the appellant do not constitute abetment is not acceptable. Repeated taunts and the words spoken by the appellant to the deceased made her life miserable. If her husband was not well the appellant should have consoled her and treated her with greater love and affection so that she did not loose heart but on the contrary she was taunting and passing sarcastic remarks against her which were in tolerable. How the deceased could be held liable for the ailment of Rajkumar. To say that her arrival in the house was inauspicious amounted to mental cruelty. That impelled her to bring an end to her life. The wilful conduct of the appellant drove her bahu to commit suicide. The presumption under Section 113A, Evidence Act springs up and abetment on the part of the appellant is established.
9. The conviction of the appellant under Section 306, IPC is well merited. So far as sentence is concerned keeping in view the old age of the appellant and the pendency of this appeal for about ten years sentence is reduced to simple impris- onment fo one year. Beyond that the judicial benevolence is impermissible.