Uttam Chandra and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Justice Shri N.K. Gupta

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.9.1998 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in ST No. 160 of 1996 whereby the appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- respectively. One month''s simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine for each count. The prosecution''s case in short is that on 8.7.1996 the appellant Uttam Chandra informed the officers of the Police Station Kotwali, Tikamgarh by Merg intimation Ex. P/13 that the deceased Sushma, wife of the appellant Uttam Chandra, had committed suicide by hanging. A panchayatnama lash Ex. P/2 was prepared and dead body was sent for post mortem. Dr. Keshav Singh (PW1) had performed the post mortem and gave a report Ex. P/2 and he confirmed that the deceased Sushma died due to hanging. Kapoor Chand (PW5), father of the deceased, had submitted a written report on 9.7.1996 to the Police relating to dowry demand and harassment done by the appellants to the deceased. An investigation was initiated. Some letters of the deceased were also seized. After due investigation a charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh who, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Tikamgarh and then ultimately it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.

The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that the deceased was making a force upon her husband to shift to the village of her maternal uncle and run a flour mill of her maternal uncle. The father of the deceased demanded some money so that he could perform the marriage ceremony of the younger sister of the deceased. In defence Ushabai (DW1), Jagannath Prasad (DW2) were examined.

After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned above.

The appeal was filed in the year 1998 and execution of sentence was suspended. After some time the appellant no. 1 disappeared and he could not be arrested though arrest warrant was issued for several times. Hence Savita Koshti, Advocate from the Panel of Legal Services Authority was appointed to represent and defend the case of appellant no. 1 and to assist the Court. Thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the appellant no. 2 has submitted that the deceased died after four years of her marriage. There is no intimation given by the parents and relatives of the deceased about the deceased for last 2 1/2 years of her life. There is a lot of contradiction between the allegations made by father, mother and sister of the deceased. Father-in-law of the sister of the deceased was also examined and he did not say anything about dowry demand. Some of the witnesses who were examined as witnesses of local area, e.g. Balwir (PW4) and Sushil Kumar (PW2) have turned hostile. Though the prosecution witnesses did not accept the suggestion of the appellants but, the defence witness Jagannath Prasad (DW2) has proved the fact that the appellants gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the father of the deceased so that he could perform the marriage of his youngest daughter and Jagannath Prasad had mortgaged house of the appellants. Similarly the defence witness Usha Bai (DW1) has also confirmed the fact that the deceased was creating a pressure upon her husband to sell the house and go to her parent''s house to run a flour mill. The appellants are convicted without any reason. In the alternate it is submitted that the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for the last 16 years and therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already under gone in the custody.

The learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 has also submitted on the same line. It is submitted that looking to the contradiction with the fact of demand of dowry, it appears that there was no demand from the side of the appellants. Minor disputes are normal phenomena in the family but, no such harassment is proved beyond doubt. There is no evidence to prove the case u/s 498-A of I.P.C. It appears that the deceased died due to some sentimental provocation on her own. She was kept with comfort for the last 2 1/2 years. No harassment is proved from the side of the appellants in last 2 1/2 years of her life.

On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be appropriate. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned judgment.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted ? And whether the sentence can be reduced ?

The investigation officer Khalid Mohd. Mirza (PW10) has proved the merg intimation Ex. P/10 in which the appellant Uttam Chandra had intimated the Police that his wife was hanging through a rope in a closed room. Dr. Keshav Singh (PW1) has proved that the deceased died due to hanging. Such a death could be either homicidal or suicidal. It could not be a natural or accidental death. It is neither the case of the prosecution or of the accused that the death of the deceased was homicidal and therefore, it is almost admitted and proved that the deceased Sushma had committed suicide.

Soon after her death Kapoor Chand (PW5), father of the deceased, had lodged an FIR Ex. P/7 to the Police. In that FIR he had alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and one golden chain from the side of Uttam Chandra. Kapoor Chand gave some amount to the appellant Uttam Chandra from time to time but, he was not satisfied and therefore, the appellants were habitually assaulting the deceased and they also kept her hungry. It was also mentioned that Saroj (PW7), sister of the deceased was also telling about harassment of the deceased because she was residing in the same township. It was alleged that since last 2 1/2 years the deceased was not sent to the house of her parents. In confirmation to the report the prosecution examined Kapoor Chand (PW6) father-in-law of Saroj, Saroj (PW7) sister of the deceased, Munni Bai (PW8) mother of the deceased. Sushil Kumar (PW2), Arvind (PW3) and Balwir (PW4) were also examined. Out of them Sushil Kumar and Balwir have turned hostile. Arvind (PW3) has claimed that he was a neighbour of the appellants but, he specified the one incident when father of the deceased came to take his daughter and she was not sent with them. He has also alleged that the appellant no. 2 was making allegations against the deceased that she had relations with another man but the evidence given by Arvind appears to be a falsehood as no such allegation was made by the parents of the deceased.

Arvind (PW3) appears to be a political person of some political party who allegedly tried to impeach the character of the deceased. Parents of the deceased and other witnesses did not say any single word about such an allegation made by the appellants. Similarly Arvind has stated that 7-8 months prior to her death, father of the deceased came to the house of the appellants to take his daughter and the appellants were not sending the deceased Sushma. Thereafter, he advised that the deceased be sent with her father. It would be apparent from the FIR Ex. P/7 that in last 2 1/2 years of her life the deceased never visited her parent''s house and therefore, the story told by the witness Arvind relating to the incident 7-8 months prior to her death appears to be incorrect. He has stated that no talk took place with the deceased but, in cross examination para 4, he has stated that it was informed by the deceased that she was being assaulted on the basis of dowry demand. But when he was asked that what was the dowry demand of the appellants then he could not say anything positive. It appears that Arvind being a political person of the locality is telling a falsehood due to the instigation of some one. He had no opportunity to know about the problems of the deceased and he told about so many incidents on the basis of his intimation and therefore, his statement is nothing but a hearsay evidence.

There are lot of contradictions between the various witnesses like Kapoor Chand, Premchand, Saroj and Munnibai. The allegation was that a dowry of Rs. 20,000/- was given to the appellant no. 1 before the marriage and marriage took place in a Jain Temple and it was shown that it was performed without any dowry. Kapoor Chand (PW5) has stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given in cash whereas, T.V., fan, ornaments and utensils were also given to the couple in the marriage. Premchand had no knowledge about such payment He says that total expenditure in marriage borne by Kapoor Chand was Rs. 20,000/- . On the other hand Saroj (PW7) states that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given as a dowry and that sum was given by her father to son-in-law of the appellant no. 2. But Kapoor Chand himself did not say that he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants. Munnibai, mother of the deceased, has stated that it was an ideal marriage and total gifts of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 12,000/- were given to the deceased. Looking to the contradictions between the evidence of these witnesses, it appears that no cash amount was given to the appellants in the marriage. Some gifts were given to the deceased which were given by her parents due to affection. There was no demand at that time.

Kapoor Chand has stated that when he went to bring his daughter for the first time the appellant Uttam Chandra threw all the material which was given to the deceased as gift and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- . Premchand, Saroj and Munni Bai did not confirm such a demand in the first visit of the deceased. Kapoor Chand has stated that firstly he took his daughter for one to two months and thereafter, she was sent back to her husband''s house and she stayed there for one to two months. Again when he went to take his daughter for second time and the appellants denied to send his daughter and therefore, a panchayat took place and ultimately the deceased was sent with the direction that the deceased Sushma should not be sent to the house of the appellants unless the appellant no. 1 starts regular earning and therefore, Sushma remained in the house of Kapoor Chand for one year. Premchand (PW6) confirmed about the Panchayat but, he did not say anything about any dowry demand. He was a person who was the mediator in the marriage of the deceased Sushma and the appellant Uttam Chandra. He did not say anything about the dowry demand. According to the witness Kapoor Chand the deceased visited her parent''s house for only two times and thereafter, she was not sent to her parent''s house. Witness Munni Bai, mother of the deceased, has stated that for the first time when Kapoor Chand went to bring his daughter a dispute took place and thereafter there was no dispute in taking her daughter. Daughter was visiting her house on an off. She has stated in her cross examination that for two to three times Kapoor Chand went to bring his daughter and for 4-6 times she went to bring her daughter. Looking at the statements given by Munni Bai, mother of the deceased, it appears that there was no problem to the appellants in taking the deceased to their house. The problem took place for the second time was not so grave and ultimately the deceased was sent with Kapoor Chand due to intervention of Premchand etc. Premchand, father-in-law of the witness Saroj did not state anything about any dowry demand. He has stated that he was informed by his daughter-in-law Saroj that the appellants were in habit to assault the deceased Sushma and to keep her hungry. Version given by this witness appears to be a hearsay story which is not an evidence in the eye of law. However, Saroj (PW7) has accepted in her cross examination that she could not talk directly to her father-in-law and therefore, she did not say about any problem of the deceased to her father-in-law and therefore, the statement given by the witness Premchand is nullified by the evidence given by his daughter-in-law Saroj. The witness Saroj has also blamed against the appellants that they were not sending the deceased to her parent''s house. She has stated that after her marriage the deceased Sushma went to her parent''s house only once and thereafter, she was not sent. But such allegation was nullified by Munnibai, the mother of the deceased.

Munnibai, mother of the deceased has stated that the appellants were in habit to assault the victim and she was present when the appellants assaulted the deceased Sushma. However, it is no where confirmed by either Kapoor Chand or Saroj that the witness Munni Bai ever visited the house of the appellants to bring her and therefore, the evidence given by Munni Bai that the appellants assaulted the deceased Sushma before her appears to be incorrect.

Two letters Exs. P/8 and P/10 are produced to prove that the deceased intimated her parents about her problems. It is no where established that a letter Ex. P/8 was ever posted to anyone or it was written by the deceased. The letter Ex. P/10 is a postcard and looking to the address mentioned on the post card, it appears that it was sent to the witness Kapoor Chand. However, that letter is 10 months old from the date of death of the deceased. If entire letter is perused then nothing substantial was mentioned in the letter by the deceased. On the contrary she warned her parents that if any letter is received under her name then the parents should not give anything to any one. It was possible that the deceased expected that such type of letter could be given by her sister in her name and therefore, such type of letter was written by her. It is also possible that Ex. P/10 was written by Saroj and not by the deceased Sushma. It is no where proved beyond doubt that the letter Ex. P/10 was written by the deceased. The investigation officer did not try to get the handwriting of the letter Ex. P/10 examined that whether it was of the deceased or not. Under such circumstances, nothing adverse is created against the appellants by production of the letters Exs. P/8 and P/10.

The witness Kapoor Chand had alleged in the FIR Ex. P/7 that the appellant Uttam Chandra was demanding a golden chain but nothing has been told by any of the witnesses about the demand of a golden chain. It appears that in the FIR Ex. P/7 omnibus allegations were made without any basis and therefore, the witness Kapoor Chand could not prove such allegations. He could not prove that he paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- before the marriage or there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- after the marriage. He could not prove that there was any demand of dowry from the side of the appellants and therefore, there was no reason so that the appellants would have assaulted the deceased or kept her hungry. All the witnesses have told their version according to their own wisdom which were contrary to each other.

One more allegation was made by the witness Kapoor Chand that the deceased was not sent to the house of her parents for last 2 1/2 years before her death though they went to bring her but, such allegation was not confirmed by Munnibai, mother of the deceased. It is apparent from the statements of Kapoor Chand and Premchand that for the first time when the appellants refused to send the deceased, Kapoor Chand called Premchand and held a Panchayat and thereafter, the deceased was sent with her father then if she was not allowed to visit her parent''s house for the last 2 1/2 years then the witness Kapoor Chand could arrange such type of Panchayat in the township or he could lodge an FIR before the Police or he could take various steps, so that he could take his daughter to his house for some time but no such steps were taken by the witness Kapoor Chand or any other witness which indicates that in last 2 1/2 years the parents of the deceased did not take care of the deceased to call her or to know about her whereabouts. It is apparent from the evidence given by Saroj, sister of the deceased, that Saroj was not visiting the house of the deceased and neither the deceased was visiting the house of Saroj. Therefore, Saroj had no knowledge about any assault or any demand done by the appellants to the deceased Sushma. On the contrary it is established that in last 2 1/2 years of her life the parents and relatives of the deceased did not care to know about whereabouts of the deceased.

The various witnesses denied to the suggestion that the deceased was pressurizing the appellants to sell the house and to reside with her uncle and look after the flour mill. However, the prosecution witnesses denied such a suggestion. Jaganath Prasad (DW2) has categorically expressed that initially the house of the appellant no. 1 Uttam Chandra was mortgaged with him and thereafter, he purchased the house because Uttam Chandra could not repay the mortgaged money. He has further stated that at the time of contract of mortgage the appellant Uttam Chandra told him that he was in need of money so that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- could be given to his father-in-law for arrangement of marriage of his youngest daughter in that family. It is true that Jagannath Prasad was tenant of the appellants but he did not say anything about the behaviour of the appellants with the deceased. In such circumstances, looking to the attitude of this witness his testimony appears to be correct and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant Uttam Chandra mortgaged and sold his house to provide a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Kapoor Chand.

Ushabai (DW1) has stated that she was also a tenant in the house and the deceased told her for so many times that she was interested that the appellant Uttam Chandra should sell his house and reside with her parents and look after the flour mill. However, the testimony of this witness cannot be accepted beyond doubt but a possibility is visible that the deceased Sushma could commit suicide due to any other reason.

On considering the details of the prosecution''s evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution could not prove that there was any demand of dowry from the side of the appellants either to the deceased or the parents of the deceased. It is not proved beyond doubt that what was the treatment given to the deceased in last 2 1/2 years of her life and therefore, it cannot be said that she was kept hungry or the appellants were in habit to assault her. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove any cruelty or harassment done by the appellants to the deceased. The appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable u/s 498-A of I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellants for that offence. Though a presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act is applicable but no harassment is proved by the prosecution done by the appellants to the deceased which falls in the purview of Section 107 of the I.P.C. and therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable u/s 306 of I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge without appreciating the evidence, and by simply quoting some case laws against the appellants, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 306 of I.P.C. without any basis.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted. Consequently, it is accepted. The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the said charges. They would be entitled to get the fine amount back if they have deposited.

Before I conclude, special thanks is extended to Ms. Savita Koshti, Advocate who assisted the Court very nicely.

The appellant no. 2 is on bail and her presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that her bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appellant no. 1 is absconding. However, his presence is no more required and therefore, if any perpetual warrant is issued against him then such warrant should be called back unserved. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with it record for information and compliance.