Preetam and Others vs State of M.P.

S.P. Khare, J.—Appellants Preetam, Dabbal and Nanhi Bai have been con- victed under Sections 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the first offence and they have not been separately sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 498A, IPC.

Deceased Pusiabai was married to appellant No. 1 Preetam in the year 1983. Appellant No. 2 Dabbal is elder brother of Preetam. Appellant No. 3 Nanhi Bai is their mother. Pusiabai committed suicide by burning herself on 16.12.1985. She had come from her brother''s house on 13.12.1985 with her husband. The prosecution case is that the appellants were demanding money which had been received by father of the deceased in a land acquisition case. Her brother Hemraj (PW 7) had given some money from time to time to the appellants. They were, however, not satisfied.

The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the charges under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC are proved against the appellants. In this appeal it is argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is pointed out that the evidence is of imprecise and vague character.

The evidence on record has been carefully scrutinized by this Court. Hemraj (PW 7) is brother of the deceased. He has deposed that the accused persons were harassing his sister in connection with dowry. He does not say that the appellants or any of them had demanded any money from him or his father. He does not say that the appellants had an eye over the amount which his father had received in a land acquisition case. He has stated that he had paid some money to Preetam thrice. For the first time he paid Rs. 1,200/-, for the second time he paid Rs. 500/- and for the third time he paid R.s 400/-. There is no specific statement when these amounts were paid. In the FIR Ex. P-7 which is recorded by the Investigating Officer after an enquiry and after taking the statements of the witnesses, it is not mentioned that Heniraj (PW 7) had paid money to appellant Preetam on three occasions. The father of the deceased has not been examined by the prosecution. It is in evidence that he was alive when the case was being investigated and the trial took place.

The testimony of Shankar (PW 1), Govardhan (PW 2) and Ram Singh (PW 3) is very vague. They have made a general statement that the appellants used to beat deceased Pusiabai. The testimony of Sonilal (PW 4) appears to be hearsay. Jagdish (PW 5) has stated that Pusiabai had come to the house of her mother with a child aged six months. Her husband Preetam came there and wanted to take his wife and the child to his house. At that time, there was some quarrel between the husband and the wife. That appears to be immediate cause for Pusiabai to commit suicide three days after coming to the place of her husband. Stronger evidence is needed to establish the charge of abetment to commit suicide. The evidence on record does not establish that the appellants instigated or aided the deceased in the formation of her intention to commit suicide. The evidence relating to the harass- ment caused to her by the appellants is of general character. That was not of sufficient gravity to drive the deceased to bring an end to her life. The ordinary quarrel between the husband and the wife or the mother-in-law and daughter-in- law does not constitute abetment.

This appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. They are acquitted of both the charges.