Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyanarain And Ors. vs State Of M.P. on 9 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)MPHT517
Author: Manjusha Namjoshi
Bench: Manjusha Namjoshi
JUDGMENT Manjusha Namjoshi, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.PC has been preferred by the accused persons against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 42/90, decided on 12-12-1990.
2. The appellants and acquitted co-accused Chhotelal were charged and prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections 306, 304B and 498A, IPC, on the ground that soon before the death of deceased Urmila on 19-9-89, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry and abeted the death of the deceased. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, has found the charges proved against the appellants and has accordingly, awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306, IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under :--
Acquitted co-accused Chhotelal is the father of appellants No. 1 and 3. Appellant No. 2 is wife of Chhotelal. Marriage of Urmila (deceased) was solemnised with Satyanarain (appellant No. 1) nine years prior to the date of incident. According to prosecution, three years after the marriage when Urmila was aged about 17-18 years "Gauna" ceremony (sending of bride to the marital home for the first time after marriage) was performed. That the appellants and co-accused started treating the deceased with cruelty for satisfying the demand of dowry as no dowry was given at the time of marriage. According to prosecution a demand of Rs. 15,000/- was made by the accused party. It was also alleged that the accused party use to ease and harass her for dowry. Ultimately she committed suicide by consuming poison. Father of the deceased lodged report seven days after the date of incident, that is, on 24th August, 1989. Police, Civil Lines, Rewa, registered Merg (Exhibit P-2) on 19-9-89 and found that death of the deceased was unnatural. On the report (Exhibit P-l) of the father of the deceased, FIR (Exhibit P-8) was registered. Post-mortem was performed by Dr. . A.K. Mishra (P.W. 9) and the report is Exhibit P-10. According to report (P-10) death was due to consuming poison. Prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the case against the accused.
4. On charge-sheet being filed after completion of the investigation before the Court, appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded that they have falsely been implicated in the case.
5. In the light of the aforesaid evidence available on record, learned Counsel for the appellants has not disputed that Urmila had met with a suicidal death. Thus, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter.
6. P.W. 6 Vanshapati and P.W. 7 Ramesh Kumar Tiwari are declared hostile and does not support the prosecution case. P.W. 3 A.S.N. Singh Parihar, Sub Inspector, P.W. 4 Jayaram Singh Parihar, Sub Inspector, P.W. 8 Udayaraj Singh, S.H.O. are formal witnesses relating to investigation. Dr. Mishra (P.W. 9) had performed post-mortem on Urmila, the deceased. Only evidence available on record is that of (P.W. 1) Sundar Lal, father, (P.W. 2) Bansgopal brother of the deceased and (P.W. 5) Babulal Tiwari.
7. According to Babulal Tiwari (P.W. 5) whenever Urmila use to come to her parents, she use to meet his wife and had talk with her. According to him, she never talked to him. However, his wife use to say that Urmila is being harassed by the in-laws. According to him such fact was disclosed about two three years back before her death. His statement is not trust worthy. Firstly, his statement is hearsay evidence because Urmila never told anything to him. Secondly, whatever was told by Urmila was told to his wife whom prosecution has not examined. No reason has been assigned. According to him his wife also did not say anything to him. Thus, his evidence has no bearing on the case.
8. (P.W. 1) Sundarlal and (P.W. 2) Bansgopal, father and brother of the deceased have no grievance against Chhotelal, father-in-law and husband Satyanarain. They both say that it was only mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased who used to harass and taunt her. Sundarlal has for the first time deposed in the Court that about three years after "Gauna", she told that she is not happy in in-laws house (Para 7). In Para 10 he says that wife of Jugal Kishore once said that Urmila had told her that she is being troubled and harassed by in-laws. Wife of Jugal Kishore has not been examined by prosecution. Perhaps she and wife of Babulal Tiwari (P.W. 5) and mother of deceased were best persons to disclose the reality. They were independent witnesses. Prosecution has not given explanation for not examining them.
9. (P.W. 1) Sundarlal says that his son-in-law (accused Satyanarain) has his bicycle right from the day when he use to go to school, whereas, (P.W. 2) Bansgopal in his statement (Para 2), says that Satyanarain demanded bicycle and Mohar. This witness is 18 years of age when he was examined in the Court, that is on 16- 9-1990. The incident occurred on 19-9-89. The demand for dowry was made about three years after Gauna. At that time he must be hardly 13 or 14 years of age, an immatured boy. One can not imagine that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law will talk about dowry before this boy and this boy could have understood about the importance and implication of this demand. The in-laws did not make demand for dowry before responsible persons except before immatured boy. Father of the deceased Sundarlal (P.W. 1) deposes that Bansgopal told him about demand of dowry.
10. This evidence is not supported by independent evidence though available. FIR was made seven days after the occurrence but no explanation has been given by the prosecution for delayed report. The FIR is a detailed version and history of the occurrence. Thus, it is just an after thought report and can not be believed.
11. P.W. 1 Sundarlal says in Para 11 that several times his daughter complained him about the ill-treatment but he did not take any action, neither reported the matter to the police nor told to Sarpanch or to any one. According to him he use to pursue her father-in-law who use to say that she is being properly treated and she was happy. In Para 15 of the deposition (P.W. 1) Sundarlal Tripathi says that nature of Urmila was choleric whereas Bansgopal (P.W. 2) in his statement (Para 7) says that it is not correct to say that she was of choleric nature. It is father who can judge and say correctly about the behaviour of his children. Since, she was of such character it was natural that trifling disputes might have arisen between the deceased and members of the father-in-law's family. Such loose talks can not amount to cruelty and certainly such talks shall not amount abetment for committing suicide.
12. Let us see law in this respect. Learned Counsel for accused have cited one leading case from M.P. High Court. In Pancharam and Samailal v. State 1971 JLJ-SN 80, Hon'ble Justice R.J. Bhave has explained what is abetment. It was held that the behaviour of the husband may be a cause for suicide of his wife, but that can not be equated with abetment, which requires a positive step to be taken by a person to induce the commission of the offence. In that case accused Samailal developed a love affair with one A and started neglecting his wife B. He wanted his father-in-law to take her away and had on one occasion expressed that it would be better if she died. One day when B's brother had came to take her away, she poured kerosene oil on her body and burnt herself. It was held that there is absolutely nothing to show as to what, if any, positive steps were taken by the applicant to induce B to commit suicide.
13. In another case of Devi Singh Rattan Singh v. State 1995 MPLJ 757, it was held that:--
liability for offence under Section 306 is dependent on the act of abetment which must be for committing suicide.
14. In Kansraj v. State of Punjab , it was held that :--
for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relatives can not, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such occasions are made, the over acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations can not be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death.
It was further held that:--
A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against real culprits.
Remember that in the present case the husband and father-in-law of the deceased have not been implicated with regard to demand of dowry.
15. In case of State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar AIR 2000 SC 3568 (2), it was held that :--
There is not even slightest assertion in any of the letters complaining against the husband either that he was making any demand at any point of time or he has assaulted or treated the wife with cruelty or torture. In that view of the matter, when in so many letter (Exhibits 11 to 17), the deceased has not reflected any cruelty alleged to have been meted out to her by the husband, it is difficult to maintain a conviction on the oral testimony of the younger brother of the deceased.
Thus, the evidence of the father Sundarlal (P.W. 1) and brother Bansgopal (P.W. 2) is not worth reliance. Their statements are full of conjectures and implications.
16. In Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab , it was held that :--
It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide, the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is, hence, for the Court to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death".
17. In present case at hand, three years after "Gauna" demand for dowry was made. Nine years were lapsed after marriage when Urmila committed suicide. That is after demand of dowry three-four years were lapsed when she committed suicide. Therefore, the provisions of Section 304B can not be invoked.
18. The Trial Court has stated that since after marriage Urmila remained with parents for about 2-3 years and thereafter gauna ceremony was performed and she went to her in-laws house, seven years period should be reckoned from the date of Gauna and not from the date of marriage. Section 304B speaks about the period of seven years. Perhaps for committing cruelty or harassment physical presence of wife in bride grooms house is not necessary. The husband or relatives of husband may commit such acts though Gauna ceremony is not performed. Therefore, the plain interpretation of the words seven years used in Section 304B, IPC should be from the date of marriage and not from the date of coming of bride to the bride grooms house after gauna.
19. Thus, the death of the deceased was after nine years of marriage and not within seven years from the date of marriage. Therefore, provisions of Section 304B are not attracted. Prosecution has also failed to prove that the suicide was result of abetment caused by the accused party.
20. D.W. 1 Rampratap is brother-in-law of Chhotelal who says that wife of accused Satyanarain died on 19-9-89. The evidence of this witness has no bearing on this case.
21. In the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC can not be maintained and therefore, it is set aside. The accused persons are acquitted of the offences charged. Their bail bonds are discharged.