Pritam Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20/07/1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 61/1993 convicting the appellant u/s 306 and 201 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I and 1 year R.I. respectively and with fine. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 02/05/1993 at about 10.00 am deceased Shakun Bai, who was married with the appellant about 20 years ago, was beaten in front of some guests, who assembled in a marriage in neighbouring house. Later on Shakun Bai after reaching in her neighbouring house consumed some poisonous substance, after vomit, Shakun Bai died.

Above incident of mar-peet was seen by Babyraja, daughter of the deceased (PW-9) also. Information of death of deceased was sent by messenger by the appellant in neighbouring village to parents of the deceased. Without waiting for the arrival of parents of deceased, dead body of deceased was cremated in suspicious condition.

On 03/05/1993, Indra Pal Singh, brother of the deceased (PW-12) submitted a written report Ex.P/9 in Police Station- Amanganj, expressing some doubt regarding death of his sister. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/3 was recorded by Police Amanganj. On 03/05/1993 Police Amanganj reached on cremation ground and seized ashes of deceased. A case at Crime No. 59/1993 u/s 498A, 306, 201 IPC was registered against the appellant. In-turn during investigation the appellant and his parents were arrested on 06/05/1993. Ashes of deceased was sent for chemical examination to FSL Sagar.

After completing investigation police Amanganj, citing 20 witnesses, submitted a charge sheet against the appellant and two others. Trial court framed charges u/s 498A, 306, 201 IPC. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication due to anger of parents of deceased on account of her death.

To substantiate the case of prosecution, statements of Uttam Singh (PW-1), Vishwanath Singh, brother of deceased (PW-2), Chandrakant Pandey, Constable (PW-3), Babulal (PW-4), Rajjulal Vishwakarma, Patwari (PW-5), Ansh Pal Singh (PW-6), Sukh Saheb Singh, brother of deceased (PW-7), Smt. Gendh Kuwar, mother of deceased (PW-8), Babyraja, daughter of deceased (PW-9), Bhadur Singh, father of deceased (PW-10), B.M. Swami, Station House Officer (PW-11) and Indra Pal Singh, brother of deceased (PW-12) were recorded. To substantiate defence of the appellant, statements of Hari Shankar (DW-1), Sardar Singh (DW-2) and Sunder Singh (DW-3) were recorded.

Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial court acquitted the co-accused persons of all charges. Trial Court acquitted appellant of the charge u/s 498A IPC. However convicted the appellant u/s 306, 201 IPC and sentenced him as above.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Ingredients of Section 107 IPC is not proved by the prosecution. Conviction is based on doubtful and insufficient evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both.

In present case, dead body of deceased was cremated without waiting for arrival of parents and other family members of the deceased. Police seized ashes of dead body of deceased from the cremation ground and sent for chemical analysis. FSL report available on record does not show presence of any poisonous substance in it. Therefore, mode of death cannot be ascertained on the basis of this evidence.

Conviction has been based by trial court on two circumstances. One is that in the morning the deceased was beaten in presence of guests by the appellant, hence his above such act is act of abatement of suicide. Second circumstance has been taken into consideration by the trial court is that deceased was cremated in hasty manner without waiting for arrival of parents and other family members of the deceased.

Vishwanath Singh (PW-2), Sukh Saheb Singh (PW-7) brothers of deceased, and Gendh Kuwar, mother of deceased (PW-8) did not support prosecution story and were declared hostile. They did not say anything incriminating against the appellant.

Babyraja, daughter of deceased (PW-9) stated that deceased was beaten by appellant in presence of guests in the morning. Obeying direction of co-accused persons, appellant dealt lathi blows to the deceased. There had been some celebration of marriage in neighbouring house of close relative. After sometime deceased came back to her own house, Babyraja (PW-9) did not see her mother taking pills etc. In Para 10 of her statement she admitted most of the time she used to live in house of her maternal uncle.

In so far as fact of cremation of dead body of deceased in suspicious condition is concerned, evidence of Ansh Pal Singh (PW-6) is worth consideration. He has stated that during marriage celebration Barat was about to come back and feast was going on, hence cremation of dead body of deceased was performed quickly. Information of death of deceased was sent to the parents and other family members. Indra Pal Singh, brother of deceased (PW-12) lodged FIR (written report Ex.P/9) to police. His statement is also mainly on the point that cremation was performed without waiting for them. Bhadur Singh, father of deceased (PW-10) and Indra Pal Singh, brother of deceased (PW-12) are not the witnesses of mar-peet etc.

On careful perusal of evidence of Babyraja, daughter of deceased (PW-9), it is revealed that during 20 years of maternal life there had been frequent instances of beating of mother by father. In such back ground, act of beating will not amount to abatement of suicide if it is proved by medical evidence. Prosecution has to prove that suicide was instigated by the accused or accused was engaged by way of some action or omission in conspiracy or accused has intentionally aided in act of suicide. Mar-peet in the marriage in front of guests, in facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be an act of abatement.

In view of the fact that deceased died during the celebration of marriage in the family, cremation has been performed without any delay or waiting for arrival of parents. By itself it cannot be sole circumstance indicative of guilty mind of appellant. Early cremation in such situation cannot be said to be doubtful circumstance by itself.

Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of Babyraja, daughter of the deceased (PW-9) and Indra Pal Singh, brother of deceased (PW-12) in right perspective. Indeed it is matter of concern and grief that deceased died untimely, but her suicidal death was abated by the appellant or not is matter of appreciation of evidence. Evidence of PW-9 and PW-12 is not sufficient to hold that appellant abated the suicide or death of the deceased in this matter. As discussed above, conviction of appellant u/s 306/201 IPC is not sustainable. Thereby conviction and sentence of appellant is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Bail bonds are discharged.