CHANDARBAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal of the year 1996 has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.09.1995 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 296/95 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of 2000/ -, in case of default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 05.05.1995 deceased Seema W/o Kamalsingh was being taken to hospital at Ujjain but on the way she had died.

(2.) According to prosecution story deceased Seema was harassed by her mother -in -law Gitabai and her sister -in -law Chandrabai. On the date of the incident deceased was beaten by them due to which deceased had consumed poisonous substance and died. Chandarbai stated that she had gone to Bade when she returned from there she had seen that deceased Seema fell in the Bada, suddenly she called Ramsingh from the outside and he took Seema to Ambodiya after that to Ujjain Hospital but on the way Seema died. Dr. Pramod had conducted the postmortem and prepared the report and mentioned that there were several injuries found on the dead body. Before death Seema has informed her parents that she was being harassed by her in -laws. The accused/appellant abjured her guilt and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the matter. Moreover the case was based purely on circumstantial evidence. The accused Chandrabai who is sister -in -law was not even present in the spot at the time of the incident. Moreover, only ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased was the reason for which the trial Court had convicted the appellant. Moreover, Counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record to implicate the accused/appellant. So also parents of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case. In this view of the matter, Counsel urged that the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of doubt, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent/State has per contra stated that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference. Hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. On considering the above submissions, I find that looking to the death of the deceased Seema I find that it was in -laws who took to the hospital and the cause of death has not been specified by the doctor of the postmortem and there are omnibus statements of interested witnesses regarding cruelty by the present appellants. The statements have been recorded by the police and the ante mortem injuries are only one lacerated wound and abrasions and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was being treated with cruelty by the appellant and the accused/appellant was on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty granted to her. Then under these circumstances suspicion however strong cannot take the place of truth and it would be crucial to convict the accused/appellant for offence under Section 306 of the IPC on such shaky and unreliable evidence. I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and since the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence, the question of convicting the accused does not arise. The conviction of the accused, therefore, needs to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Appellant is on bail. Her bail bond and surety bond are hereby discharged.