Kashi Ram vs State of M.P.

Mrs. Manjusha Namjoshi, J.

This appeal u/s 374(2) Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the accused against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 76/1988, decided on 5.10.1990

Sole appellant Kashiram was charged and prosecuted for commission of offence u/s 498A and 306 IPC, on the ground that on 27.4.99 at noon in village Paitpura he had subjected her wife Prabha to cruelty and abeted her to commit suicide. Learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has found the charges proved against the appellant and has, accordingly, awarded punishment of two years u/s 498A and three years punishment u/s 306 IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution is as under:-

On the relevant date, that is on 27th April, 1988, accused husband of the deceased was working on his agriculture field. It was about noon when Prabha Devi came from home taking meals for the accused. Accused roused to anger as she did not bring meals in time since he was hungry as he could not get meals since last day. In order to given vent to his anger he gave her beating by stem of Juwar (Thatera). Thereafter, Prabha went to the house and committed suicide by strangulating herself by hanging a rope. Police, Lighora of District Tikamgarh registered a case u/s 174 Cr. P.C. and after investigation it was found that the accused had subjected her to cruelty for dowry and abeted her to commit suicide. S.H.O. Registered F.I.R. (Exhibit P/10). Postmortem was performed by Dr. H.N. Mishra who found that the death of Prabha was due to strangulation. Exhibit P/9A is his postmortem report.

On charge sheet being filed after completion of the investigation before Court, appellant/accused denied his guilt and pleaded that he has falsely been implicated in the case.

In the light of the aforesaid evidence available on record, learned counsel for the parties have not disputed that Prabha Devi had met with a suicidal death. Thus, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter any further.

The case of the prosecution is misguided and misconceived. The only incidence which happened to commit suicide was that the accused gave beating to the deceased publicly. No question regarding demand of dowry was discussed by the couple on the spot. However, whole investigation and evidence produced by the prosecution was regarding demand of dowry. However, Radhika (PW.2), Mansukh (P.W.3), Janki (P.W.4), Nandu (P.W.10) are declared hostiled to the prosecution who have not supported the case of the prosecution. These witnesses are absolutely hostile. (P.W.1) Dhanu who is father of the accused has also not supported the case of the prosecution though he has not bean declared hostile. P.W. 6 Kallu Kotwar says that he saw the body of Prabha was hanging on Miyari in the ceiling of the room. The witness was thereafter declared hostile on the other points what is disclosed by the evidence of this witness is she was found dead and hanged. Mukundilal (P.W.7) and Kalawati (P.W.9) are parents of the deceased. In their lengthy statement and searching cross examination, they say that accused use to demand dowry. She was not happy in bridegroom''s house. She use to narrate to her friends about the behavior of her husband and about demand of dowry. None of the friends has been examined. The statements of these two witness are full of exaggerations, contradictions and omissions and their statements have no evidentiary value. In any case, they don''t know about beating given by the accused to the deceased. Dr. Mishra (P.W.11) had performed postmortem on the body of the deceased. P.W. 12 S. B. Singh Parihar is investigating officer whose evidence is of formal nature.

The evidence of P.W.5 Sundarlal is only relevant in the case who says that he saw the accused beating Prabha Devi by Thatera (Stem of Juwar). Thereafter, Prabhadevi and accused came to him. This witness asked them not to quarrel. Thereafter, Kashiram took his meals and Prabhadevi left for her home. In the evening he came to know that Prabhadevi has committed suicide. In cross examination there are contradictions and omissions but are not material one, which may affect adversly to the prosecution. In the last paragraph of his statement he says that Prabhadevi use to cast wanton glances at others but not with him. But this statement has no bearing on the merits of the case.

Thus, this is the total evidence. Beating one''s wife perse will not amount to abetment to the victim to commit suicide. The leading case is of Pancharm and Samailal v. State -1991 JLJ SN 80. In which it was said that" the behavior of the husband may be a cause for suicide of his wife, but that cannot be equated with abetment, which requires a positive step to be taken by a person to induce the commission of the offence." Here, in the case, there is absolutely nothing to show as to what, if any, positive steps were taken by the applicant to induce his deceased wife Prabhadevi. Thus, no case made out against the accused u/s 302 IPC. But in any case, it is proved by he prosecution that Sundarlal (P.W.5) was eye witness whose statement was recorded during investigation u/s 174 Cr. P.C. This fact also appears to be correct if F.I.R. is also perused. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Thus, prosecation has proved that accused gave beating to his deceased wife publicly in open field and thereby subjected her to cruelty. The accused has committed physical injury by beating her resulting in mental injury. Though it may not be a ground in itself for committing suicide. The charge framed by the trial court reveals that the word hurt has been used in it. For the purposes of this Section the meaning of the word ''injury'' is synonymous with the words ''hurt'' or ''harm''. The dictionary meaning of the word ''harm'' is physical, mental or moral injury. ''Hurt'' means to cause physical injury or pain to somebody or oneself. ''Injury'' means physical harm to a person or an animal. Cruelty'' means behavior that causes harm or suffering to others, especially intentionally. The definition of ''hurt'' u/s 319 of the IPC says that whoever causes hodily pain, disease or infirmity to and person is said to cause hurt. The word ''injury'' has been defined in Section 44 IPC which means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Thus, the accused has by beating his deceased wife publicly has caused hurt and thereby subjected her to cruelty, as defined in Section 498A IPC and thereby committed offence u/s 498A of the IPC.

In the result appeal of the appellants is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence u/s 306 IPC passed by trial Court is set aside but conviction under Sect 498 A IPC is upheld. The incident is of 27.4.1988. The appeal was filed on 23.10.1990. It is more that 15 years that the accused is facing the prosecution. Therefore, there is no purpose to send the accused to jail. The ends of justice will be served if accused is sufficiently punished. Looking to the circumstances of the case, nature of offence and circumstances under which offence was committed, the period of detention from 29.4.88 to 12.5.88 is treated to be sentence in the case and he is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand (Rs. 1000/-) and in default to undergo regorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused shall forthwith deposit the fine amount in the trial court. The trial court should draw recovery proceeding against him.