SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th October, 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under S. 304-B, I. P. C. (Dowry death) and S. 306, I. P. C. (abetment to commit suicide). The appellant has been sentenced to R. I. for 7 years on both the counts separately. Both sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the deceased Suman Bai and the appellant Santosh were married in April, 1990. The appellant was unemployed and was seeking employment. He expected help from his father-in-law in seeking employment or at least expected that his father-in-law gives him Rs. 20,000/- so that he may seek employment himself. This money could not be paid by Hemraj the father of Suman Bai although orally demands were made and letters were also written with some oblique reference. Though no direct demands were made but Suman Bai had to write to her father on 3rd October, 1992 beseeching him again and again not to decline or refuse demand of Rs. 20,000/- by her husband for his employment and at least to arrange half of the money in all circumstances, at the same time mentioning that she knew that her father with his resources, was apparently not in a position to arrange that sort of big money. The process continued; the demand could not be met. The accused also wrote a letter simply referring that he had not received any definite reply nor the father of Suman Bai had sent letter as he expected. He wanted to know with certainty what the father-in-law was doing or would do. This letter was written by the accused on 22-9-91. The father of Suman Bai sent his cousin Ravishankar to fetch the girl from the house of the husband. This 'uncle' is employed in Nagarpalika Udaipura, District Raipur. He went to the house of the accused to fetch Sumanbai on 5th October, 1992. The husband did not send her and asked for money and he said that she would not be sent, until the money is paid as he needed to get employment. About 13 days after, Sumanbai left the house at about 3.00 a.m. on 18-10-92 and jumped in a well; she was drowned and died. She was pregnant for about last 4 months at that time. When Sumanbai did not return home, some time in the morning the husband went in search of her. In fact, the husband lodged a report at the police-station on 18-10-92 that Sumanbai had gone from the house at about 3.00 a.m. to ease herself saying that she was feeling much pain in her stomach. She had complained of stomach pain but he had asked her to take courage as no doctor could be available at that night time and that he would arrange for the doctor in the morning. When Sumanbai went to ease herself he did not accompany her and when she did not return he went in search of her alongwith other family member and finding her Chappal and Lota; he peeped in a well and tried with a bucket and found a cloth floating in the water; she was then pulled out, she had hardly some breath left and while she was taken to Vaidya, the Vaidya declared her dead. The parents of the girl were informed. The father of the girl lodged a written report to the police on 19-10-92 which was converted into a formal F. I. R. in which the father made grievance that his daughter was treated with cruelty and was harassed and beaten because he could not fulfil the demand of Rs. 20,000/- made by son-in-law and this demand was being made since the time of marriage.

(3.) The trial Court found that it has been established that the demand has been made for Rs. 20,000/- so that the money may help the appellant (accused) to seek some employment, and that the girl was being harassed for non-fulfilment of that demand, so much so that when Ravishankar, the uncle of the girl, went to fetch her on 5-10-92, she complained that she was harassed and beaten for non-fulfilment of the demand and the accused refused to send her with her uncle till the money is paid.