Ramlal and Others vs State of M.P.

S.K. Pande, J.

Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora in Sessions Trial No. 1010/92 vide impugned judgment dated 15.12.99 recording conviction of appellants u/s 304-B I.P.C. sentenced them to undergo R.I for a period of 7 years. Being aggrieved, appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C.

Appellant Dashoda Bai is mother of Ramlal. Deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai was legally married wife of appellant Ramlal, From this wedlock, a daughter also was borned. Deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai with daughter Vandna aged about 8 years left the house sometime on 18.05.91. Since she did not return, appellant and other family members made a search. Finally on 20.05.91 the dead bodies of Rajabai @ Ashabai and Vandna were found floating in the well. Kanchedilal, father of appellant Ramlal as such apprised the police of the incident. On the basis aforesaid, Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-21) was recoded. Preparing inquest Panchnama (Exhibits P-2, P-3), the dead bodies of Rajabai @ Ashabai, Vandna aged about 8 years were sent for post mortem. Dr. Y.K. Mehte (P.W.-9) performing the post mortem submitted reports (Exhibits P-10, P-11) and in response to query vide report (Exhibit P-12) recorded opinion to the effect that the death of Rajabai @ Ashabai, Vandna was caused by drowning. Thereafter, during the investigation of merg K.S. Thakur (P.W.-11) Incharge, Police Station - Bahoriband on the basis of information recorded F.I.R. (Exhibit P-16) and proceeded with the investigation of crime no. 101/91 u/s 304B I.P.C. Completing the investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted.

Appellants abjured the guilt. However, the court below on the basis of statements of Gangaram (P.W.-3), Gayabai (P.W.-6), Kusumbai (P.W.-10) respectively maternal uncle, mother, sister of deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty-harassment in relation to demant of dowry. As such, recording conviction of appellants u/s 304B I.P.C sentenced them to undergo R.I. for the period said above.

Admittedly, deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai was legally married wife of appellant Ramlal. Dashoda Bai is mother of Ramlal. Deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai along with daughter Vandna aged about 8 years was living in the family with the appellants. Deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai along with daughter Vandna, aged about 8 years left the house on 18.05.91. Their dead bodies were found floating in the well on 20.05.91. Kanchedilal, father of appellant Ramlal, as such apprised the police. On the basis aforesaid Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-21) was recorded. It is further admitted that preparing inquest Panchnama (Exhibits P-2, P-3) dead bodies of Rajabai @ Ashabai, Vandna were sent for post mortem. PW.-9 Dr. Y.K. Mehte has stated that on the basis of post mortem being performed, reports (Exhibits P-10. P-11) were recorded. Subsequently, in response to query, report (Exhibit P-12) was recorded to the effect that death of Rajabai @ Ashabai was due to drowning.

P.W.-3 Gangaram, P.W.-6 Gayabai respectively maternal uncle, mother of deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai have stated that some five years ago, the marriage of Rajabai @ Ashabai was performed with the appellant Ramlal. In the absence of any other evidence, it has been proved that Rajabai @ Ashabai while living with the appellants within seven years of her marriage died on 20.05.91. The death of the deceased was due to drowning.

In Smt Shanti and Another Vs. State of Haryana, , it has been held :-

A careful analysis of S. 304B shows that this section has the following essentials:

(1) The death of a women should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband"

(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.

Section 113B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before the death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed the dowry death. The meaning of "cruelty" for the purposes of these sections has to be gathered from the language as found in S. 498A and as per that section "cruelty" means "any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is like to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life etc. or harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

P.W.-3 Gangaram, maternal uncle of deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai has stated that on one occasion he was apprised by the deceased that husband Ramlal was subjecting her to beating. A month before the death of Rajabai, a letter was received by his younger brother. As per this letter, she made a complaint of ill-behaviour - harassment on the part of appellants Dashoda Bai mother-in-law. P.W.-3 Gangaram has further stated that his younger brother has died. The letter said to have been received by him is not traceable. As such, there is nothing on record to verify the correctness of the statement of P.W.-3 Gangaram that at any point of time the deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai alleged that she was subjected to cruelty-harassment by any member of the family. Further, P.W.-3 Gangaram in his cross-examination has admitted that the aforesaid facts of alleged harassment-cruelty and beating by appellant Ramlal were not disclosed by him to the police in his earlier statement (Exhibit P-2).

P.W. -6 Gayabai, P.W.-10 Kusumbai respectively mother, sister of deceased Rajabai @ Asbabai have stated that the deceased was complaining of routine quarrel and abusement by mother-in-law and younger brother of her husband. These witnesses as such were declared hostile. In their cross-examination P.W.-6 Gayabai, P.W.-10 Kusumbai have stated that the deceased has apprised them of the desire of in-laws of bringing her share in the property said to be in possession of mother Gayabai (P.W.-6). P.W.-10 Kusumbai in cross-examination has admitted that the fact aforesaid was not personally apprised to her by the deceased. Mother Gayabai (P.W.-6) told her that the deceased expressed the views of her in-laws, P.W.-6 Gayabai in cross-examination has stated that the relation between appellant Ramlal and the deceased were very cordial. They were living very happily. Deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai was educated and writing letters to her. In none of her letters she ever complained harassment - cruelty on the part of appellants in relation to demand of dowry or claiming share in the property said to be in her possession: In cross-examination para 12 P. W.-6 Gayabai has clearly stated that deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai never made a complaint to her as well as to anyone in the village in relation to alleged mis-behaviour on the part of appellants or any other member of their family.

The court below ought to have read carefully statements of P.W.-6 Gayabai and P.W.-10 Kusumbai. Reading the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of these witnesses, there is nothing in favor of the prosecution even to suggest that the deceased ever made a complaint of harassment -cruelty in relation to demand of dowry.

P.W.-6 Gayabai has stated that Delan (P.W.-S) is closely related to her. P.W.-1 Hiralal, P.W.-S Delan are resident of village Bakal where deceased Rajabai @ Ashabai was living in the family consisting of appellants Ramlal, Dashoda Bai and others. These witnesses have stated that there was no dispute of any kind between the deceased and other family members i.e. appellant Ramlal, Dashoda Bai. Had there been any dispute or incident of harassment - cruelty to the deceased these witnesses P.W.-1 Hiralal. P.W.-S Delan were expected to have knowledge. From statements of these witnesses, it has been further proved that prosecution has failed to prove the allegation harassment - cruelty on the part of appellants in relation to demand of dowry. It is unfortunate that the deceased along with daughter Vandna aged about 8 years died of drowning in the well. However, nothing can be attributed to the appellants.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the court below erred in recording conviction of appellants u/s 304B.I.P.C.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Setting aside the conviction-sentence passed by court below vide impugned judgment in S.T. No. 1010/92 appellants stand acquitted of the charge u/s 304B.I.P.C. Appellant Ramlal is said to be in jail. He be released forthwith.