HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 578 OF 2007
1. Vinod Kumar Patel
2. Jeturam Patel
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973.
! Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants
^ Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. for the State/respondent
Honble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J
Dated:04/09/2009
: Judgment
JUDGMENT
(Passed on 4/9/2009)
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/6/2007 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhathapara, District
Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 71/2007 whereby and
where under learned Additional Sessions Judge after
holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with
fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months to
each appellants and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with
fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months to each
appellants.
2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
challenged on the ground that without any clinching and
credible evidence of cruelty, torture and abatement of
suicide Court below has convicted and sentenced the
appellants and thereby committed an illegality.
3. The brief case of the prosecution:- deceased
Indranibai was married to appellant No. 1 Vinod Kumar
Patel in the Year 2006 within 8 months of her marriage she
committed suicide in the house of appellants by consuming
poison. Marg was reported by Melandas vide P-2 on
21/10/2006. Investigating Officer proceeded for spot and
after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-3 prepared
inquest of the body of the deceased vide Ex. P-4. Dead
body was sent for autopsy to the Community Health Center,
Bhatapara vide Ex. P-18. Autopsy was condoned by team of
two doctors vide Ex. P-20 by Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari and
Dr. D.P. Verma, death was due to asphyxia as a result of
consuming poison. Viscera were preserved and was seized
vide Ex. P-1. Spot map was prepared by P-19 Tahsildar and
vide Ex. P-21-A by Sub Divisional Officer (Police). First
Information Report was registered Vide Ex. D-3. Accused
persons were arrested vide P-22 to P-24. Viscera were sent
for chemical analysis vide Exs. P-25 & P-26. Statements of
the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code’). After
completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara who
in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on
transfer.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants
prosecution examined as well as 24 witnesses. Examination
of the accused persons were conducted under Section 313 of
the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing
against them and innocency and false implication is
claimed.
5. After affording an opportunity of the hearing to the
parties learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted
and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.
6. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Judgment
impugned and records of courts below perused.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the
present case deceased who was wife of appellant No. 1 and
daughter-in-law of appellant No. 2 died under abnormal
circumstances on 20/10/2006 in their house but they have
never demanded dowry and committed torture upon the
deceased they have neither instigated or added nor abated
her suicide the only facts that that she died within 8
months of her marriage is not sufficient to draw the
inference that present appellants are liable for
commission of the offence.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued
that prosecution witnesses are not supported the case of
the prosecution. The statement of PW5 Ramanand Patel
father of the deceased reveals that relation between the
parties were cordial even one day before the incident he
himself has visited the house of the appellants where he
stayed in the night he took his meal there and after
taking tea in the morning he came back to his house.
Deceased was second wife of the appellant No. 1 there was
no custom of dowry and their caste and in case of second
marriage given and taking of the dowry is most uncommon.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in
the matter of Appasaheb & Another v. Sate of Maharashtra1
in which Apex Court has held that a demand for money on
account of some financial stringency or for meeting some
urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot
be termed as a demand of dowry as the said word is
normally understood.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State/respondent opposed the appeal and argued that
deceased Indranibai died in the house of appellants under
abnormal circumstances within 8 months of her marriage,
the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is
sufficient for drawing inference that soon before her
death she was subjected cruelty and torture in connection
with the demand of dowry and present appellants are the
person who have compelled the deceased to end her life.
The conviction and sentenced awarded to the appellants are
based on reliable and clinching evidence.
11. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties,
I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution and the defence of the appellants. It is not
disputed that present appellant No. 1 is a husband of the
deceased and appellant NO. 2 is a father-in-law of the
deceased Indranibai who died within 8 months of her
marriage in abnormal circumstances in the house of the
appellants her death was abnormal, cause of death was
asphyxia as a result of suspecting poisoning. PW22 Dr.
Rajendra Maheshwari who conducted autopsy has deposed in
Para-5 of his evidence that smell of poison was present in
the abdomen of the deceased and no other injury was found
over the body. He has specifically admitted in his cross
examination that death was as a result of consuming of the
poison.
12. As regard the cruelty, torture and abetment of
suicide is concerned the cruelty has been defied in
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
follows:-
498-A. Explanation.-For the purposes of this
section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand. ]
13. A new provision in Evidence Act for presumption as to
abatement of suicide by a married woman has been added in
the Year 1983 vide amendment Act 46 of 1983 which reads as
follows:-
[ 113A. Presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married woman-When the
question is whether the commission of
suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and
it is shown that she had committed suicide
within a period of seven years from the
date of her marriage and that her husband
or such relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty, the court may
presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such
suicide had been abetted by her husband or
by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this
section, “cruelty” shall have the same
meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).]
14. In the present case deceased Indranibai died within 8
months of her marriage according to autopsy report Ex. P-
20 and statement of PW22 Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari she died
by consuming poison and same is abnormal death within 7
years of her marriage. PW1 Kotwar Melandas has deposed
that death of deceased was informed to him by appellant
No. 2 he also informed the death to the parents of the
deceased, second day father of the deceased came then at
his instance he went to Police Station and lodged Marg
intimation vide Ex. P-12 then Tahsildar and Police Officer
came and prepared the inquest report. PW3 Prahlad Verma
and PW4 Ramawatar Verma has also admitted that Tahsildar
and Police officer prepared inquest report vide Ex. P-4.
PW5 Ramanand Patel father of the deceased has deposed in
his evidence that his daughter Indranibai died within 8
months of her marriage in the house of appellants before
Diwali festival. On 17th. Appellant No. 2 telephoned to
him at about 9 P.M. in which he demanded Rs. 20,000/-
for construction of the house then he told that he is not
in position to give such amount, second day when he came
from field he saw his daughter in his house on being asked
she told that she has been sent for taking Rs. 20,000/-,
appellant No. 1 will also come then he told his daughter
that it is not possible for him to arrange Rs. 20,000/-
for them. At evening appellant No. 2 came to his house
and after some time he repeated demand of Rs. 20,000/-
which he explained. On 19th his daughter and appellant
No. 2 went back to their house he also went to the house
of the appellant along with Ramlal, Gajanand and Paretram
where they stayed in the night and they took the meal. On
second day 20/10/2006 after taking tea he came back along
with other persons from the house of the appellants.
15. On 20/10/2006 he received the telephone call that her
daughter had died then on second day he went along with 40-
50 persons of his village to the village of appellants. He
saw the dead body of his daughter. He searched the
Kotwar and went to the police station then Police Officer
came and inquired. He has also deposed that blood were
coming from the nostril and there was symptoms of pressing
of neck. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted and after
last rites to the dead body he came back to his house. He
has admitted that his statement Ex. P-5 was recorded by
Tahsildar. PW6 Mongrabai, elder aunt of the deceased has
corroborated the statement of PW5 Ramanand Patel to the
extent of information relating to death of deceased,
demand of money and death of deceased and report. PW8
Sahodrabai, mother of the deceased has corroborated the
statement of her husband PW5 Ramanand Patel, PW9 Ramlal
Marar the elder brother of the father of the deceased,
PW10 Paretram, PW11 Gajanand Patel have also supported the
statement of Ramanand Patel.
16. In the present case when father of the deceased
informed by the appellants then he came to the village and
saw the dead body of her daughter he went to the Police
Station where Kotwar lodged the Marg intimation. Inquest
was prepared. Tahsildar has recorded the statement on
21/10/2006 vide Ex. P-5 where father of the deceased has
stated the demand of money and series of incidents took
place before the death of his daughter. Statement of the
PW5 Ramanand Patel is corroborated by his previous
statement Ex. P-5 recorded by Tahsildar and from other
witnesses, PW1 Kotwar-Melandas, PW6 Mongarabai, PW7
Nandlal Verma, PW8 Sahodrabai , PW9 Ramlal Marar, PW10
Paretram and PW11 Gajanand there are some discrepancy,
contradiction and omission in their previous statement and
with the statement of other witnesses. The witnesses are
villagers they have substantially deposed against the
appellants. Statement recorded under Section 161 of the
Code is a brief, statement does not take place of detail
evidence given during the trial in the Court. In the
present case PW5 Ramanand Patel father of the deceased has
categorically deposed that on 17/10/06 appellant No. 2
demanded Rs. 20,000/- for construction of his house on
second day 18/10/06 her daughter came to his house and
again repeated the demand and told that she has been sent
for getting money.
17. On 18/10/06 at evening present appellant No. 2
himself came to the house of father of the deceased where
he repeated demand. Father of the deceased along with
other persons went to house of the appellants along with
appellant No. 2 and deceased where they stayed in the
night, they took meal and after taking tea in the morning
they went back to their village. On same day at about 5.
30 deceased committed suicide by consuming poison when PW5
Ramanand Patel came to know of the fact of commission of
suicide then he went to the village of appellants not
alone but with other 30-40 persons he saw the dead body of
his daughter and went to the Police Station along with
Kotwar for lodging the report where Kotwar has lodged the
report. Autopsy report and statement of PW22 Dr. Rajendra
Maheshwari reveal that froth and blood were coming out
from both the nostrils, light swelling were present over
face. One abrasion 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. was found over the left
side of the face. She was carrying pregnancy 6-8 weeks.
PW5 Ramanand Patel has also deposed in his evidence blood
were coming out from her nostril and symptoms of pressing
neck was also present. Blood from the nostrils and
abrasion over the face were visible and these symptoms
caused doubt upon her normal death. Symptoms relating to
pressing neck has not been supported by the medical
evidence same is exaggerated, when there was no abnormal
circumstances then there was no propriety to accompany the
appellant No. 2 and the deceased by her father and other 3
persons and to stay in the house of the appellants. These
circumstances are sufficient for drawing the inference of
abnormal circumstances which the father of deceased want
to pacify therefore he accompanied along with other
responsible persons and also stayed at night to take
proper and ample opportunity to pacify the situation and
when according to him the situation became normal then he
came back to his house and same day deceased committed
suicide.
18. As held in case of Appasaheb (Supra) the demand for
money on account of some financial stringency or for
meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing
manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. In the
present case the demand of Rs. 20,000/- for construction
of the house may be with condition of repay or not cannot
be termed as a demand of dowry. The evidence adduced on
behalf of the prosecution clearly shows that appellants
have demand money for construction of work and not in
terms of dowry therefore it cannot be inferred that
appellant has demanded dowry.
19. In the case of domestic violence or harassment
normally the affected person i.e. daughter -in-law does
not report or inform anyone about the harassment or
torturous attitude of her husband or in -laws to other
persons but as and when she gets the opportunity, she
informs about it to her parents. The parents of the bride
normally do not react immediately but wait for an
appropriate time, in the hope of amicable settlement
between the parties and to avoid further complications
which may arise in future. But when the matter becomes
intolerable then the daughter-in-law or the affected lady
discloses the torturous attitude of her husband and in-
laws, to the police, neighbour and other persons related
to her to get the dispute resolved with their
intervention.
20. In such case specific instance of harassment &
torture is not possible and after the death of bride the
details of harassment & torture is also not possible, but
it may be inferred from the evidence of parents & other
relatives of the deceased and the circumstances that the
deceased was subjected to harassment & torture.
21. In the present case deceased was carrying pregnancy
of 6-8 weeks and thereby not only she has killed her life
but also stopped the birth of her own child. It was not a
normal step taken by her and it was not possible for her
to take drastic step for ending her life even during
pregnancy.
22. Statement of father of the deceased PW5 Ramanand
Patel corroborated by the statement of independent
witnesses statement recorded by the Tahsildar vide Ex. P-5
in which Ramanand Patel has categorically deposed that on
17/10/06 appellant NO. 2 demanded Rs. 20,000/-. On
18/10/06 appellant sent the deceased for bringing Rs.
20,000/- from him, appellant NO. 2 also visited maternal
house of the deceased for taking money. On 19/10/06 father
of the deceased and other persons along with deceased,
appellant NO. 2 came to the house of the appellant No.2
where PW5 Ramanand Patel along with other persons stayed
in the house of the appellants and on 20/10/06 he went
back along with other persons and on very day at evening
deceased committed suicide by consuming poison the
aforesaid circumstances are linked and closed to each
other and are sufficient to give rice the presumption that
within 3 days appellants compelled the deceased for
brining Rs. 20,000/- from her maternal house and failing
such on same day she committed suicide these circumstances
are completely against the appellants and sufficient to
give rise the presumption that appellant are man who has
committed cruelty and torture upon the deceased and as a
result of such torture and cruelty she committed suicide.
23. Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act provides for
presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women
and makes the provisions that Court may presume having
regard to all other circumstances of the case that such
suicide has been abated by husband or by such relatives of
her husband.
24. In the present case evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution is sufficient for drawing the inference in
terms of Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act that
appellants have committed cruelty and torture upon the
deceased who was wife of appellant NO. 1 and daughter in
law of appellant NO. 2 as a result of such cruelty and
torture deceased had taken drastic steps of ending her
life specially when she was carrying the pregnancy of 6-8
weeks. After appreciating the evidence available on record
learned Courts below has convicted and sentenced the
appellants as aforementioned. Conviction of the appellants
are based on credible and clinching evidence sustainable
under the law.
25. As regard the question of sentence is concerned
present appellants have been sentenced under Sections 498-
A/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-
in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 3 months to each appellants and
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-
in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 3 months to each appellants.
Taking into consideration the commission of suicide within
8 months of her marriage of the woman aged about 22 years
who was pregnant at the time of such commission of the
suicide. The present appellants does not deserves any
sympathy in the sentence imposed upon them. Consequently,
this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is
hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
