ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under section 374 of CrPC, appellants Arjun Singh, Kesharbai and Rampyari bai have challenged their impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.9.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in Sessions Trial No. 131/95 convicting them for offence under section 498A of IPC and sentencing them to 2 years RI each and fine of Rs. 500/- each. They have also been convicted for offence under section 306 of IPC, and sentenced to 5 years RI each with fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that Sahodrabai married the accused appellant Arjun Singh at village Pigadmbar in a collective marriage (samuhik vivah) ceremony. It was alleged that Kesharbai the mother-in-law and Rampyaribai the sister-in-law, of deceased along with husband Arjun Singh used to physically harass the deceased Sahodarbai and treated her with cruelty. She returned to her parental home and Arjun Singh came to fetch her. Her mother asked appellant Arjun Singh to allow her to live with them for some more time, but permission was not granted and he took her back and they used to often beat her and being mental depressed and frustrated on the date of the incident, Sahodarabai went to the house of her sister and Vijay Singh PW3 and asked him to take to her parents. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law also came there and assured the deceased that they would send her back to her parents house. However on the next day when the people at home were busy in a pooja, Sahodarabai committed suicide by hanging in her room. The complaint was filed by husband Arjun Singh at Police Station Kishanganj. The merg was registered at No. 49/94 and it was found that all the three accused persons used to cause marpit (beat) to Sahodarabai and being depressed, she had committed suicide. The FIR was, therefore, lodged vide Ex. P-10, crime was registered at No. 373/94 and offence under sections 373/94 and 306/34 of IPC was registered against three accused persons. The body was sent for the postmortem and nylon rope was seized, statements of witnesses were recorded, and spot map was prepared. After completion of investigation the challan was put up before the Judicial Magistrate who in turn committed to the accused to their trial.

(2.) The accused abjured their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter and their defence was that Sahodarabai did not want to live with her in-laws and it was a case of false implication. The trial Court on considering the evidence of the witnesses, however, convicted the accused as herein above indicated and hence the presentappeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that the trial Court had erred in convicting the accused when there was not an iota of evidence on record to sustain the conviction. The material witnesses are all interested witnesses and there were contradictions and omissions in their testimony; besides the trial Court had erred in holding that the appellants have forcibly taken back the deceased Sahodarabai, in fact within six months of marriage, she had kept going to the parents house and she did not perform any household work and hence she used to often scold the appellants, but there was no question of the accused having treated the deceased with cruelty and the case was not one abetment of suicide as is being alleged by the prosecution. Moreover at the time of hanging, all the family members were away from home at a distance of three kilometers and admittedly the prosecutrix had stated before everybody that she wanted to go to her parents house. This clearly indicated that the attitude of the deceased that she was not willing to stay with the in-laws but by some reason, she wanted to go to her parents house. Moreover none of the prosecution witnesses are independent witnesses. The single witness, neighbour Maheshchandra has not at all supported the prosecution case.