State of Madhya Pradesh vs Mishrilal and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—The appellant-State has preferred this appeal u/s 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 31-03-2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chanchoda, District Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1999, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code. In brief, the prosecution story is that deceased Draupati Bai D/o. Jamunalal of village Moikheda was married 5-6 years before her death with accused Gopal (herein respondent No. 2). At the time of marriage, Rs. 25,000/-, a box, an almirah, motorcycle and utensils of Rs. 10,000/- were given as dowry. The accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and used to treat the deceased with cruelty by demanding some more dowry. When the deceased used to visit her parental home she used to tell the facts of cruelty and demand of dowry to her parents and others. Before death the deceased had come to her parental home at Moikheda but she was sent back along with her husband accused Gopal to her matrimonial home. On 27-09-1998 in the evening, the deceased was found lying near a drainage (Nala) between village Ramda and Moikheda. On seeing it, one Ramswaroop of village Ramda called brother of the deceased Phool Singh, who at that time, had been working in his field. Then, brother of the deceased Phool Singh identified the body as his sister Draupati Bai and thereafter went to village Ramda and informed Raghuvir Singh and Mohan. Thereafter, accused Gopal along with Raghuvir Singh and Mohan brought the deceased to village Ramda from where, the deceased was taken in a jeep to the District Hospital, Guna for treatment, however, she died on the way. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was brought to village Ramada by other jeep and on the next day, i.e. on 28-09-1998, she was cremated. Thereafter, brother of the deceased, Phool Singh (PW 2) lodged a report at police station, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex. P2) was registered and the investigation was set in motion. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent criminal Court, from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

During trial, the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded their complete innocence. The accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure denied the charges. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. After concluding the trial, the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons from the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC as stated above. Being aggrieved the same, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant-State has contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court are perverse and against the facts of record. The evidence was misread by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge is liable to be reversed and the respondents are liable to be convicted accordingly. Hence, he prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment challenged herein may be set aside.

Opposing the prayer made by learned Panel Lawyer, learned counsel for the respondents-accused has submitted that there is no perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge and the acquittal is based on sound reasons. He prayed that the appeal preferred by the appellant-State against the respondents-accused may be dismissed.

We have perused the record of the trial Court as well as the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.

Phool Singh (PW 2), who is brother of the deceased, deposed that his sister Draupati Bai was married with accused Gopal. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry had been given to the accused persons, however, after marriage the accused persons used to treat his sister with cruelty by demanding some more dowry. He further deposed that his field is near to the field of accused persons. When he had been working in his field, Ramswaroop came to him and informed that a body was lying near a drainage. Thereafter, they went to the spot and he identified the body, which was lying near the drainage, as his sister Draupati Bai and she was unconscious. Then, he informed Raghuvir Singh and Mohan who along with accused Gopal took the deceased in a jeep to the District Hospital Guna for treatment, however, the deceased was died on the way. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased had been taken to village and it was cremated. A report was lodged at the police station, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P2) was lodged. In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that his sister Draupati Bai was pregnant and she had been taking treatment by Dr. Bhagwani and accused Gopal had taken her to Dr. Bhagwani at Vinaganj where she was treated.

Naubat Singh (PW 3) who is uncle of deceased Draupati Bai, has also deposed that accused persons used to demand dowry from the deceased.

Ramswaroop (PW 5) in his evidence deposed that he had seen the deceased lying unconscious near a drainage (Nala) and he informed the family members and thereafter Phool Singh, brother of the deceased identified the deceased as his sister Draupati Bai.

Kampoobai (PW 7) who is mother of the deceased deposed that in-laws of the deceased had demanded dowry from her and used to treat the deceased with cruelty. When she came to know that her daughter was unconscious, she reached on the spot. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital by accused persons. She further deposed that 4-5 days before the death of deceased, accused Gopal and Phool Singh (son of Kampoobai) had taken the deceased to Vinaganj where she was treated by Dr. Bhagwani because the deceased was pregnant and the position of fetus was in reverse position. She further admitted the fact that the deceased was having pregnancy of five months.

Kashiram (PW 8) has also deposed that dowry was demanded from the deceased.

It is an admitted fact that post mortem of the deceased was not conducted. It is also a fact that when the deceased became unconscious and was lying near a drainage (Nala), the members of in-law family of the deceased including brother of the deceased Phool Singh (PW 2) and mother of the deceased Kampoobai (PW 7) went on the spot. The husband of the deceased accused Gopal and members of in-laws family of the deceased had taken her to District Hospital, Guna but the deceased was died on the way. It is also clear from the evidence of the prosecution that the deceased was pregnant and she was treated by Dr. Bhagwani at Vinaganj. There was some abnormality in the pregnancy. This fact has also been admitted by mother of the deceased Kampoobai (PW 7). The report of the incident was lodged on 28-09-1998 vide Ex. P2. The family members of the deceased reached on the spot. They did not lodge the report immediately and after cremation of the body of deceased, the report was lodged. It is also a fact that the husband of the deceased accused Gopal had taken the deceased to the hospital. Earlier also, the deceased was treated by Dr. Bhagwani at Vinaganj and she had been taking regular treatment by Dr. Bhagwani. It appears that the deceased was died due to some complications developed during the pregnancy. It is also a fact that there was some abnormality in the position of fetus of the deceased as admitted by mother of the deceased Kampoobai (PW 7). In such circumstances, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sections 498-A and 304 of IPC against the respondents. In our opinion, the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is in accordance with law.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, has held as under in regard to power of appellate Court in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court to that of conviction:-

It is settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances the appellate court under compelling circumstances should reverse the judgment of acquittal of the court below if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. the conclusions of the court below are contrary to the evidence on record or its entire approach in dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal leading to miscarriage of justice or its judgment is unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case. While dealing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that acquittal by the court below bolsters the presumption of his innocence.

In our opinion, the view taken by the learned trial Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly and rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal. It is hereby dismissed.