Gulab Bai And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant No.1 - Gulab Bai, appellant No.2- Raju, appellant No.3 â€" MathuraÂ

Raikwar and appellant No.4 â€" Veerendra Raikwar against the judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.169/2004 by the First

Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur whereby the learned Judge finding the appellants guilty convicted them under Section 304-B simplicitor of IPC

and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

The case of prosecution is that deceased - Genda Bai was the wife of appellant No.2 â€" Raju and their marriage was solemnized around 7 months

prior to her death.

According to the prosecution, soon after the marriage the accused persons started to harass the deceased and treated her with cruelty and when

she got sick, they also did not provide her proper medical assistance and a demand of a TVS motorcycle was also made by the accused persons.

Her ill-treatment was also informed by the deceased to her family members, hence she was taken to her sister’s village for treatment in which

the accused persons did not bear any expenses and subsequently the accused persons came to take back the deceased -Genda Bai and on their

assurance that she would be treated well, she was allowed to accompany them but on 15.6.2004 she died of burn injuries in a rather suspicious

circumstance. A case was registered against the accused persons and the learned Judge of the Trial Court after recording the finding has convicted

them as aforesaid.

Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated as the deceased had committed suicide on account of

disease with which she was suffering and on account of her untimely death, the family members of the deceased are now trying to settle the score

against the accused persons. A merg report in this case was lodged on 15.6.2004 by the husband of the deceased â€" Raju Raikwar (appellant

No.2) to the effect that on 15.6.2004 at 5.45 a.m. he got up on account of a bright light and saw that his wife was burning, he tried to save her

but they could not save her. According to this merg intimation, the deceased had died on account of burn injuries and the smell of kerosene was also

there. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses whereas accused persons have not examined any one on their behalf and under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. in their accused statement, their defence is that they have been falsely implicated. It is also the defence that the deceased’s father

had spent Rs.50,000/- on her treatment which he was demanding from the accused persons and as the accused persons refused, a false case has

been registered against them on account of death of Genda Bai.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the appeal on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the judge of the

trial Court in convicting the appellants as the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it appears that the learned Judge of the trial Tourt had framed

charge u/s.304-B of IPC simplicitor and no charge under s.34 of IPC has been framed, but as no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the

appellants, the case is considered on its merits.

Dr. Deepak Pippal (PW-11) has conducted postmortem of deceased - Genda Bai vide Ex.P/13. According to the doctor, Genda Bai has died due

to burn injuries This witness has not been cross-examined hence so far as the homicidal nature of the death is concerned, the same stands proved by

this witness.

Janki Bai (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased â€" Genda Bai, she has stated that after the marriage of Genda Bai, she was treated well initially

but after 15 days when she came back, she complained about the demand of dowry which was made to her. According to this witness, the

accused persons used to demand TVSÂ vehicle and household utensils. It is further submitted by her that Genda Bai fell ill but she was not treated

properly by her in-laws, one Sanju who was the younger brother of her elder sister’s husband went to see her, at that time he informed that

appellant No.2-Raju had scolded her. Thereafter Genda Bai came to her elder sister â€" Laxmi’s home along with Sanju. Subsequently, when she

got better, the accused persons came and took Genda Bai to their home and around 08 days after she went to her in-laws’ house she

committed suicide. In her cross-examination, a question is also put to her that Genda Bai went with Sanju on her own volition and wanted to live with

him to which this witness has denied. A question is also put to her that Genda Bai committed suicide on account of her ailment to which also she

has denied.

Bhagwandas (PW-2) Raikwar happens to be brother-inlaw of the deceased. He has not uttered a single word regarding the ill treatment of

Genda bai and on the contrary he has admitted in his cross examination that appellant Raju had told him that this witness's brother had run away with

Gendabai. This witness has not been declared hostile and thus binding on the prosecution.

Lokman (PW-3) who is a local resident and claims to have known the deceased as also the accused persons has been declared hostile. Similarly

Devki Prasad (PW-5) who is also a witness of the Panchayatnama, has been declared hostile.

Laxmi Bai (PW-8) happens to be the sister of the deceased â€" Genda Bai. Her evidence is important as she has also implicated all the accused

persons but she has specifically stated that she had sent her younger brother-in-law to see her sister Genda Bai around one month prior to her death

and he had brought Genda Bai back to her house and after two days Genda Bai’s husband, appellant No.2-Raju, had come with many persons

to her house in a jeep and threatened her that if Genda Bai does not return then they will face dire consequences, hence she herself had dropped

Genda Bai to her in-laws’ house. She has also stated that appellant No.2 â€" Raju had some illicit relations with another girl. Thus this witness has

also made omnibus statement against accused persons but so far as the appellant No.2 Raju is concerned, she has made specific allegations against

him that he used to beat the deceased.Â

Munna Raikwar (PW-9) happens to be the father of the deceased â€" Genda Bai. He had also stated that appellant No.2 â€" Raju had quarreled

with Genda Bai and had also thrashed her and thereafter Genda Bai went to her sister â€" Laxmi Bai’s house where she stayed for around 8 days

and was treated by Laxmi Bai but her husband appellant No.2 â€" Raju did not pay any amount towards her treatment, thereafter Laxmi Bai dropped

Genda Bai to her in-laws’ house and her father in-law and mother-in-law had assured her that now there would not be any dispute but

immediately after 8 days, appellant No.2 â€" Raju’s brother â€" Virendra informed that Genda Bai had committed suicide. Thus even from the

examination-in-chief of this witness, it appears that appellant No.2-Raju was the real culprit and the other accused persons had a passive role so far

as the death of Genda Bai is concerned.

At ths juncture, it would be apt to refer to the proposition regarding the omnibus statements being given by the prosecution witnesses which has

been propounded by the Apex court in the following manner in the case of Monju Roy v. State of W.B., (2015) 13 SCC 693. The relevant paras of the

same read as under:-

“7. We have given serious thought to the question raised about the possibility of exaggeration in the prosecution version in implicating all the family

members.

While we do not find any ground to interferewith the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of

non-fulfilment of dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not

ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court observed: (SCC p. 215, para 5)

“5. … A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if

not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for

maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of

the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.â€The court has, thus, to be careful in summoning

distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand

dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere

naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in the absence of any specific role and material to support such role.

In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand  it was observed: (SCC p. 419, para 14)“  14 . No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g.

PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the

deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but

we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often

happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of

Bihar, etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court

insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case.â€​

Moreover, ingredient of the offence underSection 304-B IPC is not mere demand of dowry but “cruelty or harassment†for or in connection

with demand of dowry. In Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was observed: (SCC pp. 71-72, para 29)

“29. … What is punishable under Section 498-A or Section 304-B IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the

husband on the woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before her death a woman

has been subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person

had caused the dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. The act of subjecting a woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection

with, any demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be established by the prosecution for the court to presume that the accused has caused

the dowry death.â€​

The court has to adopt a pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows

cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against the brothers and sisters and

other relatives do not stand on the same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court

has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, even if it is accepted that the appellants were involved in raising the demand for dowry there is

no material that the appellants harassed the victim resulting in her death. Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband who may be benefited

by the dowry and may be in a position to harass and not all other relatives, though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in that regard. It is also true

that till such an unfortunate event takes place, the family members may not disclose the demand of dowry being a private matter and under the hope

that the relationship of the couple may improve. However, having regard to the nature of their relationships, there being possibility of the

appellants’ having been named by way of exaggeration, we are of the view that the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt in that regard

in the facts of the present case.

(emphasis supplied)

Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid proposition, the facts of the present case and the evidence adduced therein do not inspire the confidence of this

court to come to a conclusion that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

After close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that although the harassment of the deceased â€" Genda Bai is proved

against all the accused persons, her death has resulted on account of the ill treatment meted out to her by the Appellant No.2 - Raju who was also her

husbandand had the greater responsibility to treat her properly and look after her well being. Thus appellant No.2 Raju cannot escape the

conviction awarded to him by the Trial Court but this Court is satisfied that other accused persons though cannot be convicted under Section 304-B of

IPC but are liable to be convicted under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and this Court finds it a fit case to sentence them for the period already

undergone by them in jail which is 10 months and 10 days and also looking to the fact that the incident had taken place on 15.06.2004 and around

14 years have already passed.

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 â€" Raju under Section 304-B of IPCÂ

by the Trial Court is hereby affirmed. So far as the conviction of appellant No.1 â€" Gulab Bai, appellant No.3 â€" Mathura Raikwar and appellant

No.4Veerendra Raikwar under Section 304-B of IPC is concerned, the same is hereby set aside and instead they are convicted under Section 498-

A/34 of IPC and sentenced to the period they have already undergone as indicated herein above. These appellants are already on bail, their bail

bonds shall stand discharged.