RAMANYANDAS AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7-4-98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No. 128/07 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as described below.

(2.) As per prosecution story, Navdha Bai was married to appellant-Ramayandas. For marriage of brother of Navdha Bai, a loan was taken from the appellants, which was not being repaid. Navdha Bai was being repeatedly subjected to harassment, cruelty and she was left behind in her parental house, pregnancy was aborted. The loan amount of Rs. 6,000/- was repaid with interest, total amounting to Rs. 9,075/- on 24-9-1996 in the presence of witnesses in Panchayat meeting. After three months, on 18-12-1996, Navdha Bai was found dead in the village well near her house. A merg intimation in Ex. P/16 was recorded on the information given by Bagwan Das. Police, after arriving at the scene of occurrence, gave notices to the witnesses and inquest over dead body was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr. D. D. Mishra (PW14) conducted post-mortem and prepared post-mortem report in Ex. P/14 wherein he stated the cause of death to be Asphyxia as a result of consumption of insecticide found in the stomach. Thereafter, FIR in Ex. P/17 was recorded in the Police Station, followed by investigation and filing of charge-sheet alleging commission of offence under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of IPC against the appellants and Phuleshwari, the mother-in-law. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty of commission of offence under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced as described above which has been assailed by the appellant by filing instant appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC is not sustainable in law as the prosecution has failed to prove, by leading cogent and reliable evidence, that the alleged cruelty was in connection with demand of dowry. According to him, the prosecution witnesses have stated that after marriage, there was some dispute. For marriage of the brother of the deceased, loan was taken and as the loan was not being repaid by the parents and family members of the deceased, she was being harassed and subjected to cruelty. The entire evidence of the prosecution, even if taken as it is, there is no iota of evidence that cruelty, if any, was in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients of commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC i.e. cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is not proved and therefore, the appellants could not be convicted for the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that merely on proof of cruelty, no presumption can be drawn that the cruelty was in connection with demand of dowry. All the essential ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution and it is only when the ingredients are proved beyond reasonable doubt that presumption of dowry death having been caused can be drawn under the law. It is next contended that even the allegation of cruelty is not proved by clinching and reliable evidence. The evidence of the brother-Sukhdas (PW1) and mother-Punibai (PW4) suffers from contradiction and omission and no specific overt act constituting cruelty has been stated but vague and general allegations have been made. In the background of admitted position that loan was taken and that was not being repaid, there might be some displeasure or scolding by the appellants but that would not be sufficient to constitute cruelty so as to prove commission of offence under Section 498-A, IPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments in Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR(SC) 763 ; Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) v. State of Andhra Pradesh (represented by Public Prosecutor), 2013 AIR(SC) 1567 and Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 2013 AIR(SC) 1504 .