Sagni Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker

Criminal Appeal u/s 374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.8.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions trial No. 85/1994 holding the accused/appellant guilty under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six years respectively.Case of the prosecution in short is that marriage of the deceased Dhaneshwari Bai was solemnized with the son of the accused/appellant namely Tularam Yadav in the year 1992 and she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance on 30.10.1993. Based on the information given by the Government Hospital, merg intimation Ex. P-13 was recorded and after merg inquiry, FIR Ex. P-9 was registered against the accused/appellant on 5.11.1993 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. After investigation, challan was filed by the police on 22.12.1993.

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she denied the charge levelled against her and pleaded her innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no case under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is made out against the appellant as all the allegations levelled against her are general in nature and that on account of false implication, the appellant has already remained in jail for more than one year and looking to the role attributed to her, this punishment is quite enough.

On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that after about one year of marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty to such an extent that she was left with no other option but to end her life by consuming poison and in these circumstances the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing her as mentioned above, is just and proper and no interference with the same is called for in this appeal.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Chaitram Yadav (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that marriage of his sister Dhaneshwari Bai was solemnized with Tularam Yadav sometime in the year 1992 and after marriage twice he had gone to bring her back and that she had told him that her husband and father in law were very good but her mother-in-law (the appellant herein) used to quarrel with her. According to this witness, on this, he made her sister understand saying that in the matrimonial house such incidents do take place. Punai Bai (PW-2) - the mother of the deceased has stated that deceased had informed her that when she used to be in the company of her husband, her mother-in-law used to overhear their conversation. According to her, whenever the deceased wanted to buy bangles, her mother-in-law used to object to that. This witness has stated that the present appellant also used to have taunted the deceased for her not bearing child even after one year of marriage. Sita Bai (PW-3) has also made the same allegations as have been made by PW-1 and PW-2. She has however stated that the deceased was harassed by the appellant saying that she had not brought sufficient articles and that whenever she used to fall sick, accused/appellant never took care of her. Housla Prasad (PW- 4) is the witness of inquest Ex. P-2. Gopalram (PW-5) who happened to be the brother of the deceased in relation has not made any specific allegation against the appellant. Dr. R. B. Agrawal (PW-6) is the witness who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. Dashrath (PW- 7) - the uncle of the deceased has stated that the deceased had informed him that her mother-in-law used to quarrel with her on petty matters. Surajram Sahu (PW-8) is the Patwari who had prepared spot map Ex. P-4. Chandrika Prasad Verma (PW-9) is the witness to seizure of articles made under Ex. P-5. Dr. A.K. Chandrakar (PW-10) is the witness who first medically examined the deceased. Dr. V.R. Meshram (PW-11) is the witness who had medically examined the deceased in the hospital before death. Chandra Bhushan (PW-12) is the witness to seizure of some poisonous substance made under Ex. P-8. N.S. Rajput (PW-13) is the witness who has done part of the investigation. R.P. Sharma (PW-14) is the investigating officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. R.G. Rohi (PW-15) is the witness who did part of the investigation.

From the statements of the witnesses what emerges is that the appellant used to overhear the conversation of the deceased with her husband apart from objecting to her buying bangles. Evidence further goes to show that the appellant used to express her dis-satisfaction towards the articles brought by the deceased. She also used to taunt the deceased for not bearing the child even after one year of marriage, pick up quarrel with her on petty matters and deprive her of adequate care in the event of her sickness. Thus the allegations made against the appellant if seen in its entirety, are sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.

As far as the allegation of abetment to commission of suicide is concerned, if it is seen in the light of abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC, nothing to be termed as instigation or abetment to do a particular thing is visible setting the provisions of Section 107 in motion. Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:

Abetment of Suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to life.

Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC which reads as under:

Section 107. A person abets the doing of a thing,

who -

First. - Instigates any person to do that thing;

or

Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Keeping in view the allegations made against the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of `abetment'' are totally absent in the instant case. An offence u/s 306 IPC would stand only if there is an `abetment'' for the commission of the crime. Accordingly, in the present case offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out against the appellant. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction u/s 498A IPC is hereby maintained but conviction u/s 306 IPC is set aside. As the appellant has already remained in jail for about one year and thereby completed the sentence for the offence u/s 498A IPC, no order in this regard is necessary.