PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26. 2. 99 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar in S. T. No. 283/98 convicting all the appellants under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentencing each of them for RI 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of depositing fine further six month imprisonment, while appellant No. 1 Pratap Singh was also convicted under Section 306 of the IPC with sentence of RI 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of depositing fine further imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case in short are that before three years from the date of the alleged incident i. e. 16. 7. 98, appellant No. 1 got married with deceased Shakun Bai. At the time of the marriage, no contact or conversation with respect of dowry took place between the parties or their families. As per further case, subsequent to marriage, for two years, no complaint regarding any act of cruelty was made by the deceased against the appellants. It is also said that before 10-11 months from the date of the incident, the deceased and her husband appellant No. 1 started residing separately from the parents of appellant No. 1. Before two months from the incident the deceased was taken to the parental home by the father where she made some complaint against the appellants about taking more work from her and also regarding some beating. Subsequent to it, the matter was subsided between them and the deceased was sent with appellant No. 1 to her matrimonial home. Thereafter on the aforesaid date i. e 16. 7. 98, said Shakun Bai set herself on fire and committed suicide in her matrimonial home. After such incident, appellant No. 1 pratap Singh went to the Police Station Rahatgarh and lodged the marg intimation of the aforesaid unnatural death, in which it is also stated that the deceased was suffering from stomach ache since morning. In the inquest inquiry, the inquest panchnama, spot-map and seizure memo were prepared. The dead body was sent to the hospital where its postmortem was carried-out, according to which deceased died because of burn injuries. In the course of marg inquiry, the statements of her parents Kishori Yadav and Smt shyamrani Yadav, Meharban Singh (brother of said Kishori) and one villager Ramswaroop Yadav were recorded. In the course of such inquiry the first information report Ex. P/13 for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested, interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC. On consideration of the charge-sheet, initially the charge of Section 306, in alternate 306/34 of IPC was framed against them. Subsequently the additional charge under section 498-A was also framed but the appellants abjured the guilt from such charges, on which, the trial was held. After recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, all the appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC with the above mentioned punishment while, appellant No. 1 is additionally convicted under section 306 of the IPC with the above mentioned punishment. The same is under challenged in this appeal. It is noted that appellant no. 2 and 3 have been acquitted from the charge of Section 306 of IPC.

(3.) SHRI L. N. Sankle, learned appearing counsel of the appellants taking me through the evidence led by the prosecution, assailed the impugned judgment saying that the ingredients of the alleged offence of Section 306 of the IPC or/and Section 498-A of the IPC is not made out against any of the appellants. He further said that on proper appreciation of the evidence, the trial court ought to have acquitted them from all charges. According to his submission in the lack of any admissible evidence showing that the deceased was abetted by the appellant No. 1 to commit the suicide, such appellant could not be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC. It was also argued that instructing the daughter-in-law or the wife to do the domestic work or the field work of the family field, could not be treated to be the act of cruelty and, in such premises, the approach of the trial court holding all the appellants guilty for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not sustainable and prayed for setting aside the conviction of the appellants by allowing this appeal.