Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Tehseeldar Singh And Others on 20 August, 2014
1 Cri.A.No.467/01
(State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
***
DIVISION BENCH HON.SHRI JUSTICE S.K. GANGELE & HON. SHRI JUSTICE B.D. RATHI *** (Criminal Appeal No.467/2001) Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Raun, district Bhind. Versus Respondents (1) Tahsildar Singh s/o Babbu Singh aged 28 years;
(2) Ramsiya w/o Babbu Singh;
(3) Bitoli wd/o Hawaldar Singh.
All residents of Dhanupura, P.S. Raun, district Bhind (M.P.).
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State.
Shri V.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondents/ accused.
Judgment (Delivered on 20th Day of August, 2014) The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
B.D. Rathi, J:-
Instant appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment delivered by the Fourth Additional Sessions 2 Cri.A.No.467/01 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh) Judge Bhind, (M.P.) on 11/2/200 in S.T.No. 99/99, acquitting the present respondents of the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A, 302 and 201 of I.P.C.
(2) Facts in short as came out from the evidence led before the trial court, which are just necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that Arun Kumari @ Tori (since deceased), daughter of Ramadhar (PW-5) was married with the respondent No.1-Tahsildar Singh, prior to three years. It is alleged that after the marriage of his daughter, her husband and the members from in law's side started raising illegal demand of motorcycle and they used to harass and torture her. On 8/7/98 when Sadhu Singh @ Abhilakh Singh (PW-1), cousin brother of the deceased went to see Munna Master and passed through the way of the house of accused Babbu Singh then he heard scrimmage from inside the house and saw that Tahsildar was beating his sister with some iron pipe and she was caught hold by sister-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law of the deceased. Then the witness came back to his home and informed the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, Ramadhar (PW-5), the father of the deceased rushed to the village with his relations and was apprised by the persons of the locality about the death of his daughter. On the report, a Crime No.208/98 was registered against the accused-persons for committing offence under sections 304-B and 201 read with section 34 of I.P.C. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and on committal the sessions trial was conducted against the accused. After recording the evidence the learned trial Judge acquitted the present accused by the 3 Cri.A.No.467/01 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh) impugned judgment, hence this appeal is before us.
(3) In order to bring home the aforesaid charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses , namely, Sadhu Singh (PW-1), Santosh @ Mukhru (PW-2), Ramdulari (PW-3), Udayveer Singh (PW-4), Ramadhar Singh (PW-5), Bitta @ Kamlesh (PW-6), Yashpal Singh Rajpoot (PW-7), Naresh Kumar Sharma (PW-8), Jagdeesh Prasad (PW-9), and Bal Krishna Katare (PW-10). The accused in defence examined Shatrughan Singh (DW-1), Shivbeer (DW-2), Jagannath (DW-3) and Brijendra Singh (DW-4).
(4) After taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused for the commission of the alleged offences, hence, this appeal.
(5) Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State contended that the evidence of the prosecution has not been appreciated in proper perspective by the trial court. He submits that the prosecution by adducing evidence on record well established the charges against the accused/respondents even then same has been ignored. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed against the evidence on record and the law applicable to the case is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is requested that by allowing the appeal, the judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the respondents-accused 4 Cri.A.No.467/01 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh) be convicted and punished as per law.
(6) Per contra, Shri V.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquitted accused by supporting the judgment under appeal contended that by scrutinising properly the evidence, the learned trial court has come to such a conclusion. It is argued by him that in this case prompt FIR was not lodged and prior to the incident neither any complaint nor any FIR was lodged against the accused which shows that the case has been cooked up by the prosecution. On these premised submissions, it is prayed that the appeal against acquittal of respondents preferred by the State may be dismissed.
(7) Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in order to see whether the conclusions arrived at in acquitting the respondents are reasonable and plausible or the same are vitiated by some manifest illegality, entire record and evidence have been perused by us.
(8) The case of the prosecution hinges on the evidence of witnesses Sadhu Singh (PW-1), Santosh @ Mukhru (PW-2), Ramdulari (PW-3), Udayveer Singh (PW-4), Ramadhar Singh (PW-5) and Bitta Devi (PW-6). The learned trial court on considering the evidence of all these witnesses noticed that their statements are not constant and corroborated to each other. The father of the deceased Ramadhar Singh (PW-5) though disclosed in his evidence that prior to 2 or 2 ½ years of the incident, he came to know that his daughter was being harassed by her husband and in-laws on account of 5 Cri.A.No.467/01 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh) insufficient dowry but no such report was lodged by him against the accused persons. The trial court has further taken into account the conduct of the witness Sadhu Singh (PW-1) in not disclosing the fact to anybody even after seeing the accused beating his sister. No report was lodged about the incident by him. In these circumstances, it is held that there was no reliable evidence on record to prove the fact of harassment in connection with demand of dowry. To draw a presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the necessary ingredient to be established is that soon before her death, the deceased must be subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry and only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304-B, it can be presumed that the accused or any of his relative has caused dowry death. However, as discussed above, in the absence of any such evidence, the trial court has held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. After going through the evidence on record and further considering the reasonable probabilities arising out of the circumstances of the matter, we also find that the view taken by the trial court is proper and justified.
(9) That apart, it is well settled that in acquittal appeals, interference is warranted only when it is found that the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. As discussed above, there is no evidence at all against the accused-respondents to connect them with the alleged offences. The view taken 6 Cri.A.No.467/01 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh) by the trial Court is thus reasonable, plausible and possible view from the evidence recorded. Hence, the judgment and order impugned in the appeal therefore does not require any interference by this court from any of the corners.
(10) Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Gangele) (B.D.Rathi)
Judge Judge
20/8/2014 20/8/2014
(Bu)