RAMESH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant-Ramesh, has challenged his conviction for offence under Sections 306, 498-A of the IPC, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa, District Khargone in S.T. No. 78/1997 by judgment dated 29-9-1998 sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment of 6 years for offence under Section 306 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default of payment of fine, one year's SI for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC with 2 years' RI with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine and the appellant would have to undergo an additional sentence of 6 months imprisonment. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Rinjala Barela r/o. Karanpura got his daughter Bailibai married according to their customs 10 years prior to the incident to one accused-Ramesh Hazaria r/o. Rakhi Khurd. Two children were born out of the wedlock and after some years of marriage, Bailibai started making complaints against her husband-Ramesh that he did not treat her properly and when she was ill, accused-Ramesh also assaulted her. He started tormenting her that he would take a second wife and she narrated the incident to her father whereupon the father of Bailibai tried to cajole the husband whereupon he agreed and took Bailibai back to her matrimonial home. However, on returning home, he again started repeating the same behavior and being mentally harassed she returned to her parents house in Karanpura. For the second time, the father-in-law of Bailibai came to take her back. He assured Bailibai's father that all the in-laws would treat her properly. On 26-5-1996 getting fed up of the daily beatings and cruelty she left home. However, her dead body was found in the Government well. The news of her death was informed by Hazaria Barela to the Police Station Khetia, and merg was recorded at No. 10/96. Thereafter, the FIR was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation was launched, the body was recovered from the well. The map Panchnama was prepared. The body was sent for the post-mortem. The spot map was prepared in the presence of the Panchas. Statement of witnesses recorded and the clothes of the deceased were sent along with the articles to the Police Superintendent, thereafter, to the FSL for its report. On completion of the investigation, the offence was registered under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC against the accused. The accused was duly committed to his trial.

(2.) He abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. He took up the defence plea that he never committed any cruelty and that somebody had killed Bailibai and thrown her dead body in the well. The complaint was also lodged by his own father Hazaria, whereas he used to love his wife and he never caused any marpeet to her as alleged. The main thrust of the argument for the Counsel for the appellant is that two essential ingredients under Section 306 of the IPC are required to be fulfilled, i.e., the accused must have abetted the commission of the offence and the fact that deceased did not die due to suicide, only then there can be a conviction. Moreover, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of the suicide and offences under Section 107 and Section 306, IPC are required to be proved against the accused. Counsel urged that the commission of suicide must be proved by clear evidence and no cruelty is required to be proved by the accused especially if the evidence is one that is by "tutored witnesses". Then the cruelty cannot be itself proved to be committed by the accused and in such a case, no offence is made out. Placing reliance on Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, 2012 2 SCC(Cri) 42, Counsel submitted that if the evidence did not disclose the presence of the accused on the spot, around the time of commission and the presumptions are not available, since it was more than 5 years that the occurrence is disclosed for the first time in Court, then the probability of the witnesses is badly affected and the Court should not act on presumptions. The facts narrated in Court are narrated for the first time after a long gap of time then it can be assumed that such evidence and material on record arise out of suspicion; but, suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof and Counsel stated that there was no evidence on record regarding the cruelty meted out to the deceased by the present appellant. The interested witnesses, i.e., parents of the deceased Perwibai (P.W. 6) and Hazaria (P.W. 9) had never proceeded against the accused at the time of the "merg" enquiry or even for a considerable time thereafter. The case is purely based on circumstantial evidence and hence, therefore, Counsel prayed that the evidence on record was not of sterling character.

(3.) Drawing the attention of the Court to Onkar (P.W. 1) s/o. Dalia, Counsel submitted that he was the uncle who used to live in the village of the husband of the deceased. He has himself stated that the marriage had taken place 10 years prior to the incident and Bailibai was in good health till the birth of her two children. Thereafter, the husband and wife used to quarrel, which is likely in every domesticity in the marriage.