State of Madhya Pradesh vs Basant Kumar & Ors.

Appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the impugned order of acquittal dated 3.3.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge

Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2005, whereby the learned ASJ has set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

16.4.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C Vidisha in Criminal Case No.289 of 2004 and acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section

498-A read with 34 of the I.P.C. It be noted that the learned JMFC had convicted the respondents under Section 498-A r.w 34 IPC and

sentenced thereunder each of the respondents to suffer Simple Imprisonment (for short ""the SI"") for a period of six months and to pay fine of

Rs.300/- (three hundred) and in default of payment of fine to serve additional SI for a period of fifteen days.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 15.1.2000 complainant Anjana (PW3) made an oral FIR to ASI Ramvishal Singh (PW7) at Police

Station Dehat Vidisha stating that she got married to respondent Basant on 16.2.1996. Respondents namely Leeladevi and Naresh are her

mother-in law and Dewar respectively. Some time after the marriage, they used to harass and torture her mentally and physically to bring

Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) in cash and one motorcycle in dowry. On 14.9.1997, they committed marpeet with her and thereafter they summoned

her father Jagdish Prasad (PW1) to her matrimonial home at Narsinghgarh by making a telephone call. Thereupon, her father came to her

matrimonial home on the same date. In the presence of her father, they committed marpeet with her in connection with demand of dowry. Her

father told them that her financial position is not such that he could meet their demand of dowry, and he entreated them not to commit marpeet with

her. But they insisted upon him to fulfill their demand of dowry. Thereupon, her father brought her with him to her parental house at Vidisha. On

24.10.1999, respondents namely Basant and Leeladevi came to her parental house at Vidisha. They asked her in the presence of her brother

Vivek (PW2) and his friend Umesh (PW4) whether the arrangements of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and one motorcycle have been made as per their

demand?. Thereupon, she replied to them in negative. At this, respondent Leeladevi told her that they would remarry respondent Basant. So

saying, they left her parental house. After the said episode, her father made efforts for settlement of the dowry dispute with the respondents but in

vain. ASI Ramvishal Singh reduced the oral FIR made by the complainant Anjana into writing being Ex.P/2 and he registered a case against the

respondents at Crime No.6 of 2000 under Section 498-A IPC.

ASI Kunwar Rajendra Singh (PW6) investigated the case. He recorded the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses and arrested all the

respondents.

Upon the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the respondents under Section 498-A was filed.

The charge against the respondents had been framed under Section 498-A r.w 34 IPC by the learned JMFC. They abjured their guilt and

pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, they were put to trial. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied all the incriminating circumstances

and evidence appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They took the defence that the complainant was haughty by nature and she did

not want to live in their company, which is why she lodged the FIR making false allegations of dowry related cruelties. In defence, they examined

two witnesses namely Narayan Singh (DW1) and S.C.Sharma (DW2).

Having analysed and appreciated the evidence on record, the learned JMFC found the respondents guilty for committing the offence punishable

under Section 498-A r.w 34 IPC vide judgment dated 16.4.2005, and he convicted and sentenced them thereunder as noted in para 1 of this

judgment. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed the appeal. Vide the judgment dated 3.3.2006, the learned ASJ allowed their appeal by

setting aside the judgment passed by the learned JMFC and acquitted them of the charge under Section 498-A r.w 34 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by

the order of acquittal, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 378 (2) (b) of the CrPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned ASJ disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses on minor contradictions and

omissions. Thus, the learned ASJ passed the order of acquittal on misreading and erroneous appreciation of prosecution evidence. Therefore, the

impugned order of acquittal be set-aside and the order of sentence dated 16.4.2005 passed by the learned JMFC be restored.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order of acquittal is passed by the learned ASJ upon the close

scrutiny and proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order of acquittal by this court is called for. He stated

at the time of arguments that the court concerned had passed the decree of divorce between the complainant and the respondent Basant Kumar.

Thereafter, he remarried again.

I have given my full consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and perused the judgments

passed by the learned JMFC and the learned ASJ and the evidence on record.

The learned JMFC having placed reliance upon the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the respondents under Section 498-A r.w

34 IPC whereas learned ASJ disbelieved the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 498 r.w 34 IPC

setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC. Having regard to the two irreconcilable views adopted by the courts below, I

have to examine meticulously and minutely the evidence on record to arrive at the conclusion which of the two courts has rightly analyzed and

appreciated the evidence on record keeping in view that in a case of dowry related cruelties besides the evidence of the victim woman, the

evidence of her parents and the relatives are available and the neighbours of her husband seldom come forward to give evidence in her favour as

they do not want to antagonize the husband and his family members coupled with the settled position of law that in dowry related cruelties, the

conviction may be imposed upon the husband and his relatives if the evidence of the victim, her parents and relatives is found wholly inspiring and

reliable.

Complainant Anjana (PW3) has stated in her evidence that some fifteen days after her marriage, the respondents started beating her forcing to

bring Rs.50,000/- in cash and one motorcycle in dowry. When her brother Vivek came to her matrimonial home first time after her marriage to

bring her back to her parental house as per custom, the respondents refused to send her with him. After one and half month, her brother came

again to take her to her parental house. At that time, the respondents sent her with him after telling her to bring Rs.50,000/- in cash and one

motorcycle. However, her parents sent her back to her matrimonial home with the persuasion that with the passage of time everything will be set-

right. But the respondents would physically and mentally torture and harass her in connection with the fulfillment of their demands of dowry. On

14.9.1997, they beat her badly in connection with their demand of dowry and expelled her out of the matrimonial home. Thereupon, she made a

telephone call to her father sitting outside of her matrimonial home. On the same day, her father Jagdish Prasad (PW1) came. The respondents told

her father that if he wanted to keep her with them, then he had to fulfill their old demand of dowry. Her father told them that he is a lowly paid

government employee, therefore, he is unable to fulfill their demand of dowry. Having heard so, the respondents beat her in the presence of her

father and asked her father to take her with him. Thereupon, her father took her to her parental house at Vidisha. Ever since, she has been living

with her parents. She has further deposed that on 24.10.1999, respondent Basant and Leeladevi came to her parental house at Vidisha and asked

her in the presence of her brother Vivek and his friend Umesh whether the arrangements have been made for providing Rs.50,000/- in cash and a

motorcycle in dowry. She replied in negative. Thereupon, respondent Leeladevi threatened her that he would get respondent Basant remarried.

Later, she lodged the FIR Ex.P/2. She has also stated that when she was living with the respondents, she wrote an inland letter Ex.P/1.

The aforestated evidence of the complainant has been corroborated in material particulars by her father Jagdish Prasad (PW1), mother

Sudhabai (PW5) and brother Vivek (PW2) and to some extent Umesh (PW4), who is friend of Vivek, in their examination-in-chief. However, I

do not find their evidence wholly inspiring, reliable and trustworthy for the following reasons :

(1). The complainant has admitted in para 11 of her evidence that she had no speaking terms with the respondents for a period between

14.9.1997 and 24.10.1999. She had failed to explain as to when on 24.10.1999 respondents namely Basant and Leeladevi came to her parental

house and told her that they would take her back if their demand of dowry was fulfilled, then why she had not lodged the FIR immediately and

lodged the FIR on 15.1.2000.

(2). The complainant and her father have stated in their evidence that a written complaint was given to the Superintendent of Police Vidisha and he

forwarded the same to the police station Dehat Vidisha. But the prosecution had not produced the written FIR made by the complainant in the trial

court. On the other hand, ASI Ramvishal Singh (PW7) has deposed that the complainant had straightway lodged an oral FIR at Police Station

Dehat Vidisha. At the trial, the complainant, her parents and brother had not produced a copy of the written FIR. In the circumstances, it appears

to me that the police of police station Dehat Vidisha had knowingly suppressed the written report of the complainant. Therefore, there is a strong

possibility that FIR Ex.P/2 was written interpolating and twisting the facts which have not been mentioned in the written report of the complainant in

order to rope in the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.

(3). The complainant''s parents Jagdish Prasad and Sudha Bai have admitted in their crossexaminations that at the time of the settlement of the

marriage of the complainant with respondent Basant and at the time of marriage, the respondents had not demanded any dowry. Thus, the

evidence of complainant is not reliable on the point that some fifteen days after her marriage, the respondents started torturing her mentally and

physically in connection with the demand of dowry.

(4). The complainant has stated in para 5 of her evidence that she lodged inland letter Ex.P/1 when she was living with the respondents. Upon the

perusal of the letter, I find that the ""A to A"" part of the letter ""VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"" was later added. If this part of the letter is

avoided then it is proved that the complainant was happily and peacefully residing in her matrimonial home.

(5). From the perusal of the evidence appearing in para 14 of the complainant and 18 of her father Jagdish Prasad, it appears that the complainant

had filed a case for judicial separation against respondent Basant in a court of ASJ at Vidisha. Therefore, it is a strong possibility that the

complainant had lodged FIR Ex.P/2 with a malafide intention to create a ground for seeking a decree of judicial separation against respondent

Basant.

(6). The complainant, her parents, brother Vivek and his friend Umesh gave omnibus statements before the trial court in respect of the dowry

related cruelties against the respondents. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon.

(7). Sudhabai (PW5), the mother of the complainant, has broken down in her crossexamination and admitted that her daughter, the complainant

has got education up to M.A, whereas respondent Basant has got education up to 10th standard and at the time of settlement of marriage between

them, the respondents had not told them the education of respondent Basant and this is the main cause of dispute. From the aforesaid admissions

of this witness, the evidence given by the complainant, her parents, brother Vivek and his friend Umesh in their examinations-in-chief is totally a

tissue of lies that the respondents committed cruelties upon the complainant in connection with the demand of dowry.

(8). As per the evidence on record, the complainant has got education up to M.A in Hindi Literature, and she is a contractual teacher after her

marriage in the service of the Education Department of the Government of M.P, whereas respondent Basant runs a small shop. In this fact

situations, the differences of opinions between them at their mental level cannot be ruled out and it may be a main cause of dispute between them.

Defence witness Narayan Singh (DW1) has stated that that the father of respondent Basant and he had been teachers in the same school, that

they are living in Narsinghgarh town and that he has a living contact with his family members. He has noticed that the cause of dispute between the

complainant and the respondents, the poor education of respondent Basant. As a result, the complainant has been living separately. This fact has

been admitted by the complainant''s mother Sudhabai in her crossexamination. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is reliable. Hence, this court

may say that this is not a case of dowry related cruelties as alleged by the complainant.

Defence witness S.C.Sharma (DW2) has given the evidence regarding the service of complainant and her salary, therefore, his evidence is not

material in the present case.

For the foregoing close and critical scrutiny of evidence on record, I hold that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not wholly inspiring,

reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, the learned ASJ has not erred in disbelieving their evidence and acquitting the respondents of the charge under

Section 498-A r.w 34 IPC setting aside the judgment rendered by the learned JMFC.

In the result, I dismiss this appeal being devoid of merits and substance upholding the impugned order of acquittal. The bail-bonds furnished by

the respondents shall stand cancelled.