State of M.P. vs Ajeet Kumar, Smt. Usha Jain and Rishab Kumar Jain

B.D. Rathi, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the State u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 30.01.1999, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 235/1997, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A & 304B of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). Prosecution case in brief, is that on 08.03.1997 at about 5:30 P.M. respondent No. 1, Ajeet Kumar and his younger brother Rishab Kumar, respondent No. 3 were present in their shop. After receiving the information from an unknown person that some people have gathered in front of their house they reached at their residence, where Sunil Kumar Gupta told them that Aarti W/o Rishab Kumar, committed suicide by hanging herself inside the room and door was bolted, thereafter door was broken down and dead body of Aarti was put on the ground. The whole incident was narrated by respondent No. 1 at Police Station Kolaras and merge was registered as No. 10/1997 (Ex. P/1) and thereafter Crime No. 58/1997 (Ex. P/2C) was registered for the offence punishable u/s 304B of IPC against the respondents. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

During the trial the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that they had been falsely implicated.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution. Though sufficient evidence available on record to convict the respondents, even then respondents were acquitted. It was also submitted that the appeal may be allowed and respondents be convicted.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record that the acquittal is well merited, appeal be dismissed.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and material available on record.

To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, M.P. Sharma (PW-1), Town Inspector who had registered the merge intimation No. 10/1997 (Ex. P/1), Kamlesh Sharma (PW-2), Police Constable who had sent the copy of the FIR to the Court of JMFC, Asha Devi (PW-3) mother of the deceased, Dr. Kamal Kishore (PW-4) father of the deceased. Ramesh Chandra (PW-5), Dinesh Narayan (PW-6), Dr. S.K. Majesi (PW-7) who had conducted Autopsy, Mahendra Singh (PW-8) independent witnesses, Angand Singh Kushwaha (PW-9) SDOP, Mehboo (PW-10) independent witness. One Sunil Kumar Gupta (DW-1) was examined as defence witness by the accused persons.

It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the respondent No. 3 was solemnized with Aarti Jain (since deceased) on 23.06.1991 well within the seven years from the date of incident 08.03.1997. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that Aarti had committed suicide by hanging herself.

Dinesh Narayan (PW-5), Mahendra Singh (PW-8) and Mehboo (PW-10), independent witnesses were declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case, even after asking the leading questions.

The testimony of Asha Devi, Dr. Kamal Kishore and Ramesh Chandra were also disbelieved and their statements were discarded by the learned trial Court because their statements were full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.

Some letters written by the deceased Ex. P/5 to P/9 and Ex. D/1 were also produced by the prosecution in evidence. In paragraph No. 13 of the judgment learned trial Court held that after perusal of these letters, it is crystal clear that since June 1992 till the date of incident not a single allegation in regard to demand of dowry was made against the respondents by the deceased.

In paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment trial Court held that Aarti had committed suicide on her own will and nobody was responsible for the same because as per letter Ex. D/1, which was admittedly written by the deceased, Aarti had specifically written that she has committed suicide on her own will and no one is responsible for the same.

After taking into consideration all the evidence and material available on record, trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents.

In our considered opinion, impugned judgment of acquittal is well merited and there is nothing on record to interfere in the judgment. Accordingly appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. The respondents are on bail their bail bonds stand discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the record to the learned trial Court.