MUNNALAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH appellants have been convicted under sections 306 and 498 -A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years and three years respectively by the judgment and finding dated 8.9.1986 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 271/85. Being aggrieved by their convictions and sentences they have filed this appeal.

(2.) ACCUSED No. 2 Draupadi Bai is the mother of accused No. 1 Munnalal. Four or five years before Munnalal was married with Tulsabai. There was no issue out of the wedlock of Tulsabai and her husband Munnalal. The prosecution alleges that on 14.7.1985 at about 2 O'clock during the day Tulsabai burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil and committed suicide. Sunderlal lodged a report in the Police Station on the same day which is recorded in Roznamcha Sanha. The report is Ex. P -3. The police reached on the spot and made usual investigation. Dead body of Tulsabai was sent for postmortem. Postmortem report is Ex. P -1. It was on 17.9.1985 that the offences under sections 306 and 498 -A IPC were registered. FIR (Ex. P -10) was recorded by Sub -Inspector R.K. Dubey. During investigation R.K. Dubey (PW 3) found that Tulsabai committed suicide and that during investigation he is of the opinion that her husband Munnalal, appellant No. 1 and her mother -in -law Draupadibai, appellant No. 2 were harassing her as a result thereof she committed the suicide. Challan was filed and the charges were framed against the accused -appellants. Appellants abjured their guilt and contended that they were falsely implicated. It was also contended that deceased was suffering from stomach trouble.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate on the other hand contended that since they are the rustic villagers. The mere fact that they did not themselves make any protest or they did not voluntarily make report would have not effected the varacity of the witnesses. In the opinion of the Court when Chhotelal (PW 6), real brother of the deceased, admittedly accompanied Tulsabai upto the hospital, had there been any genuine complaint about abetment for suicide or cruelty he would himself lodged the report then and there or immediately thereof. Such conduct of brother goes to show that the story about harassment and maltreatment is an afterthought. This Court has scrutinised the evidence adduced by the prosecution and specially that of PW 6 - Chhotelal, PW. 11 -Ramji and PW 14 Gendlal. It is noted that there are material omissions. These contradictions and omissions have been marked, relate to about conduct and relations between husband and wife. Such improvements which they have made regarding the behaviour of the accused appellants and their demands make the prosecution story doubtful.