Lalit Kumar Tiwari vs State of M.P.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—This appeal was initially preferred by the appellant Lalit Kumar Tiwari and Smt. Manikala (since deceased) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.4.1996 passed by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST. No. 43/92 whereby each of them were convicted and sentenced u/s 498A of IPC till rising the court with fine of Rs. 4000/-. In default of depositing the fine SI for four months has been awarded. In pendency of the appeal, on account of death of appellant no. 2 Smt. Manikala till her extent the appeal became abated, hence her name was deleted from the array of appeal memo. So at this stage, this appeal is being decided only in respect of appellant no. 1 Lalit Kumar Tiwari. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the deceased Smt. Vandana Tiwari got married with Vijay Kumar Tiwari, the elder brother of the present appellant on dated 4.7.1987. Subsequent to that while residing in the matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and torture on account of demand or in connection of dowry by the present appellant and his sister Manikala, for which on her visit to parental home, she also made complaint to her father. Before some days of the alleged incident, in which said Vandana Tiwari had died, her father visited her house. On such occasion he was ousted by the appellants from her residence. In that respect a report was also lodged in the Manila P.S. Subsequent to such report on submitting the apology by the husband of the deceased and on giving some assurance by his family members that they would not commit such act in future, the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home. But there was no change and again Vandana was subjected to aforesaid act of cruelty, harassment and torture by the appellants. On account of such cruelty of the appellant and his sister Smt. Manikala, on dated 8.7.1991 she by pouring kerosene on herself, set fire, consequently she sustained burnt injuries, on which she was taken to Victoriya Hospital where her two dying declarations were recorded.. During the course of treatment, she succumbed to burnt injuries. On receiving such information an inquest report was registered at P.S.. Belbagh, District Jabalpur. In its enquiry, after preparing the spot map, seizure memo of the articles found on the spot and the memorandum of dead body in presence of the witnesses, the dead body was sent to hospital where its autopsy was carried out. According to postmortem report she died due to ante-mortem burnt injuries. In further enquiry of the inquest, on establishing prima facie circumstances against the appellants for the offence of Section 304B/ 34 of IPC, a crime for such offence was registered against the appellant and his deceased sister, Manikala on dated 11.8.1991 at P.S. Belbagh, District Jabalpur. In investigation, the interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded and appellant and his sister were arrested. On completion of the investigation, they were charge sheeted for the offence of Sections 304B, 302/ 34, 498A of IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on framing the charges of Section 498A, 302 in alternate of Section 304B of IPC against Smt. Manikala while charge of Section 498A and 304B/ 34 of IPC against the present appellant, they abjured the guilt. On which the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, the appellants were acquitted from the charge of Section 302 and 304B/ 34 of IPC while each of them was held guilty for the offence of Section 498A of IPC and punished with the above mentioned punishment, on which the appellants came to this court with this appeal. In pendency of the same on account of death of the appellant no. 2 her name has been deleted from the record. So this is being adjudicated only till the extent of appellant no. 1.

Shri P.N. Dubey with Shri Praveen Dubey, learned appearing, counsel for the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial court including the evidence led by the parties alongwith the exhibited papers of the charge sheet argued that on appreciation of evidence, after extending acquittal to the appellant from the charge of Section 304B/ 34 of IPC, on the basis of the same evidence, there was no occasion before the trial court to convict the appellant u/s 498A of IPC. In continuation he said that on taking into consideration the version of both dying declaration of the deceased, i.e. Ex. P-3 and Ex.P-8 as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of offence of Section 498A of IPC are not made out against the appellant. For the sake of arguments, if the allegation of the subsequent dying declaration, (Ex. P-8) is minutely examined, then it is apparent that some of the allegations were made only against deceased-appellant no. 2 Manikala and not against the present appellant. In continuation he said that in initial dying declaration, (Ex.P-3) recorded by ASI, (Police), Shri S.K. Shukla, (PW-1) at 10:45 in the morning immediately after reaching Vandana to hospital, she had not made any allegation of cruelty, harassment or torture against the appellant or any other person. The subsequent dying declaration (Ex.P-8) was also recorded in the hospital by the Executive Magistrate, Shri A.G. Jain (PW-13) at 8.55 PM on the same day, on which Ex. P-3 was recorded. He further said that if any inconsistency is found between aforesaid two dying declaration, then the version stated by the deceased in the earlier dying declaration should be relied on because that was made by the deceased immediately after the incident. On relying on the same, the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial court u/s 498A of IPC. In continuation he said that father and brothers of the deceased-namely Radhika Prasad Dubey, Damendra Kumar and Basant Kumar, on recording their depositions did not state any particular incident alongwith the date, time and place, on which any cruelty was committed by the appellant on the deceased. On the contrary as per deposition of Basant Kumar before some years from the date of alleged suicide of Vandana and soon after marriage of the present appellant in the year 1989, the family of the deceased alongwith her husband and the appellants were separated. So subsequent to such separation, there was no occasion to do or commit any act of cruelty by the appellant with the deceased. In support of such contention he also placed his reliance on examined defence witnesses namely Girish Kumar Sahu (DW-1), Bhagwan Das, (DW-2) and husband of the deceased Vijay Kumar Tiwari, (DW-3). With these submissions, he prayed to set aside the impugned conviction and extending the acquittal to the appellant by allowing this appeal.

On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments Shri P.K. Chourasiya, learned PL by justifying the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant said that same being based on proper appreciation of evidence do not require any interference at this stage. He further said, that in the available factual matrix the trial court has not committed any error in relying on the subsequent dying declaration, (Ex.P-8) of the deceased, recorded by the Executive Magistrate. In continuation he said that the version of such dying declaration is also supported by the witnesses examined from the parental family of the deceased. However, he fairly conceded that the defence witness, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, (DW-3), the husband of the deceased in his deposition categorically stated that before the alleged incident he and his brother the appellant were separated and residing separately and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial court.

It is apparent fact on record that at the time of marriage the deceased Vandana was residing with her husband in the joint family in which the appellant-Lalit Kumar Tiwari being younger brother of her husband and the deceased appellant no. 2 Smt. Manikala, the sister of the appellant were also residing with them. But from the depositions of Basant Kumar (PW-4), the brother of the deceased and the defence witnesses Girish Kumar Sahu, (DW-1) and Bhagwandas, (DW-2) and Vijay Kumar Tiwari, (DW-3), the husband of the deceased it has been proved on record that subsequent to marriage of the appellant Lalit Kumar Tiwari in the year 1989, the appellants and Vijay Kumar Tiwari were separated and since then were residing separately with their family. So in such premises, the inference could be drawn that subsequent to such separation between brothers, there was no circumstance to interfere in the family affairs of each other. Keeping in view such aspect, the court has to examine the available evidence as well as above mentioned both the dying declaration of the deceased.

It is apparent fact on record that above mentioned dying declarations of Vandana Tiwari, (Ex. P-3) and (Ex. P-8) were recorded by the Assistant Sub Inspector, Shri S.K. Shukla, (PW-1) and Shri KG Jain, Executive Magistrate, Tahsildar, (PW-13) respectively after obtaining the fitness certificate regarding health condition of Vandana Tiwari from the Duty Doctors, Dr. Arun Kumar Saxena, (DW-4) and Dr. Shobha Agrawal, (PW-8) respectively. The factual matrix of the respective dying declarations have been proved by the above mentioned witnesses who recorded the same. Dr. Arun Kumar Saxena, (DW-4) and Dr. Sobha Agrawal, (PW-8) in their respective depositions stated that after getting the fitness certificate regarding health condition of Vandana Tiwari from them, the respective dying declarations, (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-8) were recorded by the aforesaid officers of the State. So at this juncture both the dying declarations could not be disbelieved on the point of recording the same. The court has to decide whether earlier dying declaration could be relied or subsequent should be relied and on relying on both the dying declaration, whether the impugned conviction of the appellant u/s 498A of IPC could be upheld or not.

Mere perusal of the earlier dying declaration, (Ex.P-3) recorded by the ASI at 10.45 in the morning, it is apparent that in such dying declaration the deceased had not implicated to any of the family members or other persons including the appellant with the alleged incident. On the contrary, she stated that while cooking food, incidentally she got burnt and sustained injuries. Such version of the dying declaration of the deceased has been further supported by the testimony of Charan Singh, (PW-6), the Panch witnesses of spot map and the seizure memo of articles found on the spot who in his deposition categorically stated that during the course of preparing the spot map of the kitchen the place of incident, some wet flour (Geela Aata) was also found. So such dying declaration appears to be more correct in comparison of subsequent dying declaration because in subsequent dying declaration, (Ex.P-8), she admitted that the alleged incident was happened in the kitchen while cooking the food, but simultaneously she also implicated the appellant no. 2 Manikala, (since deceased) by stating that alleged fire was set on her by such Manikala and not by the appellant. But at page 2 of such dying declaration she stated only one thing that the appellant and aforesaid Manikala used to give harassment to her husband. So except this, nothing was stated by the deceased against the appellant. In such premises, it is apparent that in subsequent dying declaration no any specific act with the particulars of any incident of cruelty was stated by the deceased against the appellant.

In view of aforesaid even on relying only the subsequent dying declaration, (Ex.P-8) even then there is no sufficient material in it against the appellant to draw the inference that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by any act of the appellant. So in any case either relying upon both the dying declaration or only the subsequent dying declaration, (Ex.P-8) or on excluding any of them, no inference could be drawn against the appellant for committing the alleged offence of cruelty with the deceased.

Apart the above, on going through the available recorded evidence, I have not found sufficient evidence and circumstances showing or proving that at any point of time any cruelty was committed by the appellant with the deceased. Radhika Prasad Dubey, (PW-2), the father of the deceased while recording his deposition in between para 2 of his in chief has stated that on one occasion he visited the house of his daughter. At that time, his daughter was subjected to some dispute with the appellant and his sister, on which the appellant was trying to oust his daughter from the home and when he entered in her house, then he was forcefully ousted by the appellant, on which a report was also lodged with the Manila Police Station. Such report has neither been produced nor proved on record. In continuation he said that subsequently matter of such report was compounded between the appellant alongwith his family members and his daughter. So on account of such subsided incident, no inference could be drawn that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by such act of the appellant. Besides this on going through the entire in chief and cross examination of this witness, so also the deportation of Davendra Kumar, (PW-3) and Basant Kumar, (PW-4), the brother of the deceased, I have not found any material, on which it could be said that at any point of time before death of deceased Vandana Tiwari, she was subjected to any cruelty, harassment or torture with any act by the appellant. On the contrary Basant Kumar, (PW-4) in para 4 in his cross examination has categorically said that the appellant and his brother in law Vijay Kumar Tiwari were residing separately since 1989, as stated above. So in such premises, it could not be said that at any point of time or even on the date of the incident, i.e. 8.7.1991 the appellant committed any alleged cruelty with the deceased Vandana Tiwari. Except aforesaid three witnesses, no other witness has been examined from the parental family of the deceased. It is apparent that on behalf of prosecution to prove the alleged cruelty, no independent eye witness of the vicinity, in which the deceased and the appellant were residing in the separate part of the house, has been examined.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and in lack of independent evidence showing the involvement of the appellant with the offence, the impugned conviction of the appellant could not be sustained at this stage. Thus, it is held that the trial court has committed grave error, perversity and infirmity in convicting the appellant u/s 498A of IPC. The same deserves to be set aside.

Therefore, by allowing this appeal the impugned conviction of the appellant u/s 498A of IPC alongwith the imposed sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from such charge also. The amount of fine, if deposited then after proper, verification, it be refunded to the appellant. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby discharged. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.