Meera Devi vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.7.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No. 132/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A of IPC and sentenced for 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each count. In default of payment of fine, 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment was directed for each count. Prosecution''s case, in short, is that, the deceased Kiran was admitted in the hospital on 25.2.1996 with the complaint of abdominal pain. She has expired within half an hour. Dr. Gautam had sent a merg intimation, Ex. P/8 to the Police Station Kotwali, District Satna about her death. A Panchayatnama Lash, Ex. P/2 dated 27.2.1997 was prepared and her dead body was sent for the post-mortem. Dr. Shukla (P.W. 9) with other doctors performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Kiran Garg. They could not found any injury on the body of the deceased. No cause of death could be ascertained. However, there was a suspicion that she consumed some poison and therefore, viscera was preserved and given for forensic science analysis. In FSL report, Ex. P/13, it was found that the deceased had consumed Celphos i.e. Aluminium Phosphide. The police enquired about the death of the deceased then, parents and relatives of the deceased had stated that the marriage of the deceased took place 5-6 years prior to her death and her Gauna took place 3 years before her death. A female child was born to her, approximately one year prior to her death. Brother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were harassing her for so many things because she was not capable to do any work relating to agriculture. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable u/s 306/34 and 498A of IPC before the JMFC, Nagod, who committed the case to the Sessions Court.

The appellant abjured her guilt. She did not take any specific plea in the matter. According to her, a severe stomach pain was caused to the deceased and she was taken to the hospital and ultimately she expired. The deceased was residing in a separate portion of the house along with her husband and father-in-law, whereas, the appellant was residing in a separate portion along with her husband. There was no day to day interference from the side of the appellant in the family life of the deceased. However, no defence evidence was adduced from the side of the appellant.

The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no demand of dowry towards the deceased and her parents and therefore, the police has not filed any challan for the offence punishable u/s 304B of IPC. The deceased died within 7 years of her marriage but, her death is not proved to be suicidal in nature. The learned Sessions Judge jumped to the conclusion that she committed suicide. Looking to the evidence given by the parents and relatives of the deceased, it was apparent that false allegations were made against the appellant. The other co-accused persons are acquitted by the trial Court because they were not present at the time when the deceased was taken to the hospital. The learned Sessions Judge has presumed that before the deceased was taken to the hospital, some quarrel must have been taken place between the appellant and the deceased but, there was no evidence to prove that fact. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted for any offence. In the alternate, it is submitted that she has faced the trial and appeal since last 16 years and therefore, she may not be sent to the jail again.

On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court appears to be correct. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the conviction or sentence directed by the trial Court.

After considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant can be accepted? And whether the sentence imposed upon the appellant can be reduced?

The learned Sessions Judge found that the deceased had committed suicide. It is true that she was admitted in the hospital with a complaint of abdominal pain and ultimately, she died within half an hour. Bhawani Shankar, uncle-in-law of the deceased took her to the hospital, where she expired. A merg intimation, Ex. P/8 was sent by Dr. Gautam (P.W. 5). In post-mortem, it was suspected that she had consumed some poison. This suspicion was confirmed by FSL report, Ex. P/13, in which it was found that Aluminium Phosphide was present in her viscera. Under such circumstances, it is proved that the deceased died due to consumption of some poisonous substance Celphos but, it is no where established that how she could get that Celphos consumed. If Celphos could be given to the victim by any person in a forceful manner then, her death could be homicidal. Since the deceased was residing in her house and there was no allegation that she was given Celphos by anyone else therefore, there is no evidence that her death was homicidal. Such possibility cannot be ruled out that she could have consumed the poison due to some mistake and it may be a case of an accident. Only by the fact that she died due to administration of poison, no conclusion can be drawn that she committed suicide. It should be decided by other facts of the case.

Bhawani Shankar (P.W. 1) has stated that the appellant was residing in a separate portion of her house, whereas the deceased was residing in the same house in a separate portion. The appellant Meera Devi has stated in her statement u/s 313 of Cr. P.C. that when she was cleaning the utensils, the deceased complained about abdominal pain and therefore, she was taken to the Nagod hospital. The appellant did not clear the point as to whether the deceased was residing with her or not. Ramlal (P.W. 3) has stated that food was prepared commonly for the appellant and her husband as well as for the deceased and her husband but, he could not say that whether the deceased was residing in a separate portion of the house or not and therefore, the statement given by Bhawani Shankar (P.W. 1) is no where rebutted. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to the fact that the deceased consumed some poison by herself or she consumed that poisonous substance due to some mistake. Family of the appellant and the deceased, was a family of agriculturalists and therefore, availability of Celphos tablets was possible in their house. It is apparent that the husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were not present in the house at the time of the incident and it is not at all proved that some grave quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant, soon before the incident. No reason has been shown, so that the deceased could commit suicide. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said beyond doubt that she committed suicide. Possibility cannot be ruled out that she consumed poison due to some mistake.

Ramlal (P.W. 3), father of the deceased, Gangi Bai (P.W. 7), mother of the deceased, Neeraj Kumar (P.W. 2) brother of the deceased and Kamla (P.W. 4) have stated that the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased were torturing and harassing the deceased. Kamla did not give any detail that what was the harassment done by them. Two letters, Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/6 written by the deceased were produced before the Court to show about such harassments. Ramlal (P.W. 3) has accepted that those letters were not written in the handwriting of her daughter but, it was possible that those letters were prepared on her instructions because those letters were inland letters duly posted. Neeraj Kumar, brother of the deceased has stated that letter, Ex. P/ 5 was written on 29.7.1995, in which the deceased had made a complaint that her daughter could not get milk of cow. Her sister-in-law and brother-in-law were quarrelling with her because she did not know how to grind grains by hand grinder. It is apparent that the deceased was taken to the her parents'' house on the festival of Rakhi in the year 1995. After writing the letter, Ex. P/5, she visited her parents'' house but, nothing has been told by her to her parents.

Neeraj Kumar and Ramlal have stated that when the deceased came to their house for the first time, she did not say anything. Ramlal has stated that in her second visit, she told that her father-in-law was annoyed because a custom of providing rice to the father-in-law was not done in the marriage of the deceased and therefore, father-in-law of the deceased was not visiting to the house of Ramlal but, it is no where said that father-in-law of the deceased was harassing the deceased due to that count. Thereafter, Neeraj Kumar and Ramlal have stated in omnibus manner that the appellant was harassing the deceased. Neeraj Kumar gave an example that the deceased was unable to do the work relating to agriculture and therefore, she was harassed and scolded. However, if she was not doing any agricultural work then, there should be problem to the male members of the family and not to the appellant. Neeraj Kumar and Ramlal have alleged in omnibus manner that the appellant was quarreling with the deceased for petty matters and she told about such things in her visit during Rakhi of the year 1995 but, Gangi Bai (P.W. 7), mother of the deceased has stated in para 3 of her evidence that the deceased came to her house on the festival of Rakhi and she remained there upto Deepawali. She went back to her husband''s house, 10-12 days after Deepawali. Gangi Bai did not say anything as to whether the deceased told her anything about the harassment done, in that period and therefore, no cross-examination has been done of this witness by the defence counsel to that point. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that there was no harassment to the deceased from the side of the appellant otherwise she could have told about that harassment in that period to her mother. Under such circumstances, omnibus allegations made by the witnesses Ramlal, Neeraj and Kamla, appears to be of the period prior to the year 1995. The letter, Ex. P/5 appears to be written prior to her visit to her parents'' house and letter, Ex. P/6 appears to be written after her return from the house of her parents. It was written on 20.12.1995. In the letter, Ex. P/6, the deceased had informed that she was providing packaged milk to her daughter available in the medical shop and since sister-in-law of the deceased did not permit her to write down anything to her parents, therefore, she requested someone else to sent this letter to her parents. She had also mentioned that sometimes she felt that her father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law are trying to kill her and therefore, she had requested that she could be taken back to her father''s house.

By the letter, Ex. P/6, it appears that the appellant was a quarrelsome woman, who had control on the house and therefore, the deceased could not even write a letter to her parents. In this letter, it was also alleged that the appellant had assaulted her. There was no enmity of anyone to a person who wrote a letter on behalf of the deceased and therefore, letter, Ex. P/6 can be taken as an evidence given by the deceased u/s 32 of the Evidence Act. However, looking to the oral evidence given by Ramlal, Gangi Bai, Neeraj Kumar and Kamla, it appears that they could not give any instance of harassment, so that it can be said that the harassment done by the appellant was of such a nature, so that it could fall within the purview of section 107 of IPC. The deceased resided in the family for more than 3 years and she got a female child also. There was no demand of dowry from the side of the appellant but, the appellant was quarrelsome to the deceased for some domestic work and she had a bad control over the deceased. It is true that presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act is available in the present case but, such presumption is rebutable and therefore, looking to the harassment shown by the witnesses, and as apparent from a letter Ex. P/6, harassment done by the appellant was not of such a nature, so that the deceased could commit suicide. Nothing is proved in the period between 2.12.1995 to 25.2.1996 that the appellant enhanced the harassment done by her, so that that the deceased could commit suicide. If the harassment was enhanced then, she could have written a letter in the same fashion to her parents but, no such letter was written thereafter.

After considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that the appellant harassed the deceased for petty matters and controlled her unnecessarily but, her harassment was not upto that degree, so that the deceased could commit suicide. Also, it is not proved beyond doubt that the deceased had committed suicide. Under such circumstances, the appellant could be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC but, she could not be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. The trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. However, the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant was arrested on 14.5.1996 and she was released on bail on 25.7.1996 and therefore, she remained in the custody for 2 months and 11 days before filing of the charge-sheet. It is also true that the appellant is a woman, who has some children. She was only 22 years old at the time of the incident. She was the first offender. She has faced the trial and appeal since last 16 years. Under such circumstances, looking to these points along with the overt-act of the appellant, it would be proper not to sent her to the jail again but, fine imposed upon the appellant can be enhanced.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction as well as sentence directed against the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. However, conviction directed for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period, which she has already undergone in the custody by enhancing fine for that offence from a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within 2 months from today. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo for 9 months rigorous imprisonment.

At present, the appellant is on bail. Her presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that her bail bonds shall stand discharged. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.