Smt. Sail Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRR No. 361 of 2006 - Smt.
Sail Sahu, W/o Manharan Shahu, aged about years, R/o Kosha, P.S.
Pamgraha, Distt.
Janjgir, Chhattisgarh, At present R/o New Katni Near Diesel Shed, Distt' Katni, MP. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh 2.
Firtin Bai W/o Pavan Kumar Sahu, aged 48 years, R/o Village Sarkho Chouki, Naila, P.S. Janjgir.
3.
Lalu @ Umesh Kumar S/o Pavan Kumar, Aged 24 years, R/o Village Sarkho Chouki, Naila, P.S. Janjgir.
4. Kishore Sahu S/o Purshottam Sahu, Aged 28 years, R/o Sarkho, P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir.
'
---- Respondent : Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate.
For Petitioner For Respondent Not/State : Shri Adhiraj Surana, Govt. Adv.
: Shri V.C. OttalwargAdvocate.
For Respondent No.2 to 4 Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker DiWaker Hon'ble Shri Justice R.C.S. Samant Judgment On Board By Justice Pritinker Diwaker 17/11/2016 Present revision has been filed by Smt. Sail ,Sahu, mother ofthe deceased Premlata, assailing the judgment dated 20.4.2006 passed by , Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Sessions Block - BilaspUr, in ST No.152/2005, acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.
l
02. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent No.3 Lalu @
#2'
Umesh Kumar was solemnized with deceased Premlata on 2.5.2004 died after hanging herself on 14.2.2005 matrimonial house. Merg intimation EXP/10 was lodged on 14.2.2005 at 12 noon '3 Ravindra Kumar, uncle-in-Iaw of the deceased.
Inquest over the dead body was conducted on the same day vide Ex.P/2 and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Amrit Lal Soni vide EX.P/5 who noticed congestion in brain, lungs, larynx, trachea, liver and spleen.
In his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due hanging death seemed be suicidal nature. After merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P/1 1) was registered on 15.2.2005 against the respondents/accused under Section 304B/34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents/accused while framing charge, trial Judge framed charges under Sections498A and 304B of IPC against them.
03.
So as hold respondents/accused guilty, prosecution examined witnesses all.
Statements were recorded under Section Cr.P.C.
which they denied /\ circumstances appearing against them prosecution case, pleaded innocence false implication.
ln their defence, they examined three witnesses.
04. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering material available record, impugned judgment acquitted the respondents of all the charges. i 05.
State has chosen not to assail the judgment of acquittal and this ,2 revision behalf complainant, who mother
deceased.
06. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under: - that from statements of witnesses, particular PW-1 Smt.
Shaii Sahu, PW-6 Shravan Kumar & PW-10 Manharan, prima facie offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC has been duly made out and therefore, trial Court has erred in law acquitting the respondents/accused.
V - all ingredients of Section 304B of IPC'are made out *V against the accused persons.
.
that the trial Court has erred in law in believing the statements of defence witnesses while recording finding acquittal favour of the accused persons.
the postmortem report suggests that the deceased was first killed persons thereafter she was hanged thus, charge under Section IPC ought have been framed against the accused persons.
O7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been ('/u argued on behalf ofthe respondents/accused that the basic ingredients of Sections 498A and 304B of IPC are completely missing in this case.
PW-10 Manharan, father of the deceased, has categorically stated that the deceased was very affectionate to her husband and mother-in-law she had no grudge against the accused persons.
Likewise, this, witnesses has also stated that only on the basis of assumption he .
making allegation against the accused persons that her daughter was subjeCted to crUelty by them in connection with demand of dowry. He submits that the trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence
record rightly acquitted respondents/accused all charges. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that if two view are possible on the face of the material on record, one favouring the accused and another pointing towards his guiit, the one favourable to the accused shouid be adopted and that is what has been done by the trial Court, which needs no interference by this Court exercise revisionai jurisdiction.
't
08. State counsel has duly assisted the Court. O9. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
10. PW-1 Smt. Shail Sahu, mother of the deceased, has stated that at time marriage, Rsi1.30 lacs was demanded, out which Rs.90,000/- was paid and for rest of the amount, her daughter was subjected cruelty.
She stated after about 2 1/2 month marriage, when the deceased came to her house, she informed \t: '
that the accused persons are harassing her and are demanding gold K L silver. She has stated that only once the deceased had come to her after marriage and rest of the information was given by her on telephone.
In her cross-examination she states that demand of money made by the accused persons was informed by her to the police but if the same is not recorded in her diary statement (Ex.D/1) she could not it"
tell any reason. She has stated that in her lifetime, the deceased never wrote any letter to her;
respondent No.3 had not come to take the deceased as he was in job and even the deceased had requested that she may be dropped to her matrimonial house as her husband may be
facing difficulty in cooking food and all that. She has further stated that considering the nature of complaint made by the deceased, the same was not reported to police or disclosed to anyone else in the society as such kind of disputes are quite often seen in almost every household.
11. PW-6 Shravan Kumar, maternal uncle of the deceased, has also stated that at the time of marriage it was agreed to give Rs.1 .30 lacs to persons, out'of which Rs.90,000/- was paid Rs.40,000/- was yet to be paid. He has stated that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty for demand of the balance amount. He has further stated other household articles were also given t";
deceased at time marriage.
ln para-5 he stated mediator in the marriage was Bihari Lal Sahu (DW-1) and at the time of settlement, Bihari Lal Sahu too was present. He also admits that when persons demanded money, it was informed mediator Bihari and no complaint was made to the police.
12. PW-10 Manharan, father of the deceased, has stated that at the time of marriage settlement was arrived at Rs.1.30 lacs, out of which Rs.90,000/- was given cash rest was be given after harvesting the crop.
ln cross-examination, he admits that the deceased was very caring for her-mother-in-law and husband and while staying at his house, herself had requested for dropping at - matrimonial house so that her husband and mother-in-law could not face difficulty in cooking food etc. He further states that the deceased would never like to hear even a single word against her in-laws. From paras 12, 13 & 14 of his cross-examination, it appears that
,6» only on basis of assumption his daughter might have been subjected to cruelty, he made statement against the accused persons and he himself admitted this fact that he is making aliegation against the accused persons only on the basis of suspicion. 13.
PW-2 Luranlai Bareth, PW-3 Kishore Kumar Shyam, PW-5 Sakhiram Tiwari, PW-7 Kamal Kumar, PW-8 Kavita, PW'-9 G.R.
Mahiiange and PW-12 J.P.N. Singh are formai witnesses. PW-11 Vijay xev \a Agrawal is the investigating officer. PW-4 Dr. Amrit Lal Soni conducted postmortem the body of the deceased 14.2.2005 vide Ex.P/5 noticed congestion brain, lungs, larynx, trachea, liver spieen.
In his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and the death seemed to be suicidal in nature. 14.
DW-1 Bihari Sahu, a person who mediated between the two famiiies for marriage of the deceased with respondent No.3.
He has stated no dowry was settied at the time of marriage and it~was offered PW-1O Manharan he would give'Rs.
lac.
He clarified that no amount was demanded by the accused persons. He has further stated that quite often he met the deceased after marriage but she never made any complaint against the accused persons and that she was living happily her matrimonial house.
DW-2 Lalaram Sahu, also relation both families.
He stated Manharan (PW-10), his own, had offered Rs.1 lac at the time marriage and that no demand whatsoever was raised by the accused persons. DW-3 Hemlata Sahu has stated that she met the deceased prior incident, relations between deceased mother-in-law were cordial and never heard any complaint from
the deceased.
15. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that though some of the witnesses have made allegations against the accused persons but the most important witness PW-10 Manharan admits that the deceased was very caring for her mother-in-law and husband; she would never like to hear even a single word against them and while staying at her parental house, herself used request drop at , matrimonial house. This witness also admits that only on the basis of assumption suspicion he made allegation against persons.
The other important piece of evidence is the statement of DW-1 Biyhari Sahu, who mediated between the two families for marriage , the deceased with respondent No.3. He has categorically stated that no dowry was settled at the time of marriage, the amount of Rs.
lac was offered by PW-1O Manharan himself, the accused persons never raised any demand and that at no point of time the deceased made any complaint him regarding demand dowry x'"x persons. Evidence of this witness also finds support from the evidence of DW-2 & DW-3.
In their cross-examination, these defence witnesses have remained firm and reiterated the fact that no demand. was ever made by the accused persons.
16.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution basis of evidence adduced it utterly failed to proVe that it is the respondents/accused who used to harass or torture the deceased connection with demand of dowry or that
£§%m soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty or that they in any manner abetted commission of suicide by the deceased.
In this view of the matter, the findings of acquittai recorded'by the triai Court being based on proper and due appreciation of the entire evidence cali for no interference by this Court.
17. Even othenNise, it is a weil settled principie of law that interference i with judgment acquiftai permissible only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. What the Court has to see is whether the reasonings of the trial Court are well founded and acceptable with sound reasoning, and if it is so, then the question reversing the finding of the trial Court does not arise. It is only in case, if evidence record not, been properly appreciated ignoring the material facts, it is open to the Court to interfere with such judgment of the trial Court.
If there are two possible views on the basis of evidence record case, one favouring should be adopted and that is what the trial Court has done.
18. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the trial .
/s\ Court not committed any illegality while passing impugned judgment acquitting respondents all charges.
Accordingly, instant revision being bereft any substance liable be i'ffi dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
i \7 § L. ,VWJ M SdL «sap:
(Pritinker Diwaker) (R.c.STtsaméit') Judge Judge Khan