PARMESHWAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants who are husband of the deceased, his brother and father respectively, stand convicted under Sec. 304 -B IPC to imprisonment for life and to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 306 IPC as ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 1999, dated 5.4.2000. Merg, Exhibit -P/3, was lodged by PW -2 Chowaram, nephew of Appellant No. 3 on 26.12.1998 at about 4:30 p.m. stating that his sister -in -law, deceased Nargis Bai had committed suicide by hanging the same day at about 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The father of the deceased, PW -3 Ramjeevan lodged a written report, Exhibit -P/7, on 29.12.1998 before the Superintendent of Police, Durg, that his daughter was married six months ago to Appellant No. 1. On 26.12.1998 he was informed at about 8:00 p.m. that she had suffered injuries on her chest consequent to falling down from the terrace. Since he was otherwise busy he did not go to see his daughter. On 27.12.1998 Appellant No. 2 and another Anandram again informed him that his daughter's condition had further deteriorated and she was under treatment. He then went to her village. The door of her room was locked from outside. On opening the door he found his daughter's body hanging. Formal F.I.R., Exhibit -P/11 was registered on 2.1.1999. In the meantime, the body had been sent for postmortem on 27.12.1998 conducted by PW -6 Dr. R.S. Bhardwaj, who in his report Exhibit -P/10 opined that death had taken place twenty four to forty eight hours earlier by asphyxia caused by hanging, suicidal in nature. The inquest report was marked Exhibit -P/2 and the spot map marked Exhibit -P/6.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there was no evidence to sustain the conviction either under Sec. 304 -B IPC or a presumption for abetment to commit suicide by a married woman under Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act. The deceased was of a weak constitution and committed suicide which can be for many reasons incompatible with the guilt of the Appellants. There is no evidence whatsoever with regard to any cruelty or harassment for dowry at any time much less in proximity to death. Appellant No. 2 and 3 did not even live in the matrimonial home as acknowledged in their evidence by PW 3, Ramjeevan and PW 4, Sukwaro Bai, the father and mother of the deceased. They have been falsely implicated roping in the entire family. The Appellants denied the accusations under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. claiming false implication. PW -3 and PW -4, parents of the deceased, have also acknowledged in their evidence that there was never any demand for dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter. Not a single instance of harassment or torture for dowry has been mentioned in their evidence. PW -3 Ramjeevan, father of the deceased also participated in the funeral, rites without protest and lodged the report Exhibit P/7 with the police only three days later. His conduct in not having gone to visit his daughter immediately after being informed and going there the next day is not natural. The postmortem report has not found any other injury on the body. The doctor has clearly opined it to be a case of suicidal death by hanging.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the deceased was married to Appellant No. 1 barely six months earlier. There is no discernible reason why she would have committed suicide immediately after marriage unless she was being harassed and subjected to cruelty for dowry. If death took place within seven years of the marriage in other than natural circumstances, the law presumes it to be a case of dowry death under Sec. 304B IPC and the onus lies on the accused to deny the same contrary to the normal presumption for innocence of the accused till not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Even if death is occasioned by suicide within seven years of the marriage, the presumption is against the accused under Sec. 113A read with Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act. PW -3 and PW -4, the parents of the deceased, have deposed that her daughter had told them with regard to demands for dowry being made by way of TV, Scooter and Chair. The judgment under appeal therefore requires no interference.