Sunder Sahu And Another v. State

<^t° ,\0'

w".

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2000

1. Sunder Sahu son of Bagam Ram Sahu, aged 25 years;

2. Delabai wife of Bagam Ram Sahu, aged 65 years; Both residents of village Budghan, police station Bhatapra, District Raipur, Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) --Appellants/Applicants(on bail)

Versus

The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) -- Respondent/ Non-applicant FortheAppellants Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate and Shri Gajendra Sahu, Advocate from High Court Legal Services Authority.

Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer.

For the RespondenV State:

Hon'bie_^hrL.lustice Raiendra Chandra Sinah Samant Judament 18.10.2016 1.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.1999 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.

1996, whereby and whereunder the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for sh'ort 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and three years, respectively, and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were required to further undergo Sl for three -months.

Both substantive jail sentences were directed to run concurr&ntly.

2.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased - Bhagmati yvas married to appellant - Sunder Sahu about five years before the date of the incident.

Prior to date of the incident, i.e. on 10.10.1995, father of deceased Dukalu (PW-8) came to his daughter's house and saw that appellant - Sunder Sahu and deceased - Bhagmati were living separately for about three months. For this reason, Dukalu (PW-8),father of deceased, called a meeting in village Budghan, the matrimonial village of the deceased. panchayat meeting was held in the village in which Sunder Sahu, husband of the deceased refused to keep the deceased as his wife and to continue matrimonial relationship. Thereafter, sometime in the night of the same day, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance which caused her death.

The merg intimation (Ex. P/12) was lodged at Police Station, Suhela by Bhikam Sahu and a merg enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the merg report, an unnumbered First Informafion Report (Ex.P/11) (for short 'FIR') was lodged at Police Station, Suhela and the case was transferred to the Police Station Bhatapara (R), the case being of its jurisdiction on the basis ofwhich FIR (Ex.P/9) was recorded by P.S. Bhatapara (R). The police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet in the Court for prosecution of the appellants under Sections 498-A and 306/ 34 of the IPC. 3.

The appellants were charged under Sections 498-A and 306/ 34 of the IPC to which they denied.

The t.rial was conducted by giving opportunity of hearing and for leading evidence to the prosecution and defence. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned judgment was passed whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

4.

The grounds raised in this appeal are that the conviction and sentence \of the appellants are bad, improper and without any reasonable grounjJs.

("'

On the basis of the prosecution evidence, no offence under Sections 498-A and 306/ 34 ofthe IPC is made out and the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence version was not considered by the trial Court.

It is prayed that on these grounds the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted of the charges framed againstthem.

5.

The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction of the appellants is supported by the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt, for which the evidence led before the trial Court and the findings arrived at in the impugned judgment have been perused. 6.

It is not disputed that deceased Bhagmati consumed some poisonous substance in the night of 10.10.1995 which caused her death. The informant of merg (Ex.P/12) has not been examined by the prosecution. The merg enquiry is not in dispute.

Dr. A.D. Khurana (PW-13) has conducted the postmortem (Ex.P/10) and on its basis has stated that the cause of death is due to suspected consumption of poison which has not been challenged in the cross-examination. This has been a clear case of suicide. It is required to take into consideration the circumstances which led the deceased to commit suicide on the fateful day.

7.

The key witness in this case is Dukalu (PW-8), father of the deceased. Me has stated that Bhagmati was his daughter who was married to the appellant Sunder Sahu in 1991 and they had a good matrimonial life for about 2-3 years.

Thereafter, in-laws of the deceased started giving trouble to her regarding providing food after which the deceased herself started doing labour work and maintained herself. In between that, this witness went to the matrimonial village of the deceased to invite her in Tija and Pola

festival, whereupon he came to know that his daughter was not residing with appellant Sunder Sahu.

On asking appellant Sunder Sahu, he said that he has no relation with his daughter and appellant No.2 Delabai used abusive language against him.

Thereafter, Dukalu (PW-8) called a meeting with elders of the village.

In this meeting, the elders of the village told appellant - Sunder Sahu to keep Bhagmati with him, which he refused. After that, the elders suggested that if he did not want to keep the deceased with him, he should give it in writing.

By that time it was 11:00 pm, hence it was suggested by the elder panchas that father of the deceased should stay in the night.

Dukalu (PW-8) stayed in the house of the appellant and slept there.

In the morning at about 4:00 am, appellant Sunder Sahu informed him that his daughter is behaving oddly and froth was coming out from her nose and mouth. Thereafter, Bhagmati died.

8.

In cross-examination, Dukalu (PW-8) has admitted that the dispute with regard to living o,f the deceased and her husband and having food etc. separately was revealed in the Panchayat.

He has also admitted that appellant No.2 told that when they used to live together, on that occasion whenever she offered food to her grand children for that reason deceased used to quarrel with her.

He also admitted that his daughter was living separately and having food separately for about 2 to 2 Vz months. The witnesses this meeting (Panchayat) have been examined by prosecution. Sukalu (PW-2) has stated in examination-in-chief that father of the deceased called the meeting in which appellant Sunder Sahu and the -deceased were given counseling to live together. Thanwar (PW-3) has also stated about the meeting and giving counseling to appellant No.l and his • wife deceased Bhagmati.

He mentioned about dispute that ' deceased and her mother-in-law used to quarrel for the reason that food was

(^) shared by the grand children of appellant No. 2. This was the reason of quarrel between appellant No.2 and the deceased. It has been admitted in the cross-examination as well.

Udayram (PW-4) has also given statement on the same line.

Khelawan (PW-6) turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

Punavram (PW-7) has corroborated statement Dukalu (PW-8).

In cross-examination, he admitted that because quarrel and dispute between deceased and appellants, the deceased used to earn herself by doing labour work and the appellants were earning for themselves separately. Govindram (PW-11) is also a panch witness who has stated about the dispute and quarrel between the appellants and the deceased.

Similar statement has also been given by Bathariya (PW-12).

9.

On basis evidence adduced by prosecution, circumstance, which led the deceased to consume poison on the fateful night, is clearly made out. A dispute had started few months before the date of incident when the food from the household of the appellants was being shared by the grandchildren of appellant No.2. Deceased Bhagmati objected to it and for this reason a quarrel between appellant No.2 and the deceased arose and as a consequence, deceased Bhagmati chose to live separately and started earning for herself.

There is no such evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was driven out of the house of the appellants. Hence, it was the choice of the deceased herself to live separately and earn for herself.

19.

The things took turn when Dukalu (PW-8) came to village Budghan after 2 or 3 months and found that deceased was residing separately. LDoking to this situation, he made an effort to reconcile the relation between the appellants and the deceased, called a meeting of the elders of the

^SB '^ village, but this meeting turned out to be unsuccessful. In the same night, the incident happened when deceased Bhagmati consumed poison and died.

During the intervening period of 3 to 4 months before the incident and on the date of the incident, nothing has happened to indicate that the appellants acted in a manner which could be considered as a willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide on the fateful night.

11.

There is no evidence regarding exchange of words or any happening between the deceased and the appellants on the fateful day or sometime in the recent past. Thus, the only reason which can be understood from the circumstances is that on failure of the meeting held for conciliation and seeing no end to this strained relationship with the appellants, the deceased got frustrated and consumed poison on the fateful night. This act seems to be an outcome of frustration. The aforesaid conduct of the appellants in the meeting cannot be regarded as abetment as there is no other evidence which would reveal that anything happened between the appellants and the deceased after the meeting and soon before the death of the deceased. Hence, this is not a case of abetment to commit suicide and no proof of !EI abetment has been produced as defined under Section 107 ofthe IPC. 12.

As regards the finding of conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC, the narration of the events before the date of incident (Joes not fall under the explanation of cruelty given under Section 498-A of the IPC. 13.

It has been clearly marked out from the evidence on record that the deceased and the appellants used to quarrel with each other for the reason that the food in their household were being shared by the grandchildren of appellant No.2. This cannot be regarded as an act of cruelty. Cruelty is

something different which should be any willful conduct on the part of the husband and in-laws of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. There is no evidence of abusing, beating or leveling allegations bythe appellants against deceased.

Abuses were exchanged between deceased and appellant No.2 for the reason that food and household were shared by the grandchildren of appellant No.2 and it has come in evidence witnesses that appellant No.2 and the deceased participated in a quarrel and abused each other.

Hence, this is not a case of cruelty under Section 498-A ofthe IPC.

14.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned judgment conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. -The appeal is allowed and appellants are acquitted of the charges. The conviction and order of sentence is set aside. Fine if paid shall be returnable.

The Appellants are on bail.

Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC. SdA ~;

^- - (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi