Manish S/O Radheshyam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant - Manish has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement of conviction and sentence pronounced by the Special Judge, Indore on 24.07.2013 in S.T. No.14/2010, whereby charges framed under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC have been found proved against the appellant who has been sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default, 1 year additional RI) in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC and 2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- (in default, 6 months additional RI) in respect of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

The prosecution story in short was that appellant Manish who belongs to backward community had contacted love marriage with deceased Renu @ Rekha, belonging to Scheduled Caste community on 12.02.2009. The deceased had left her house without giving any intimation to her family members and later married appellant. On 18.10.2009, deceased Renu @ Rekha was admitted in hospital in burnt condition and died next day i.e. on 19.10.2009. After recording of merg and taking statements of relatives of the deceased, FIR was lodged. It was revealed in the police statements by the parents and relatives of the deceased that appellant used to harass deceased saying that because of him marrying low-caste girl, he had been excommunicated by his community and family members and he used to tell the deceased to die so that he could be reunited with his family members again.

After detailed investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, in its judgement dated 24.07.2013, acquitted the appellant from the charge framed under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted the sentenced the appellant as already described in para-1 above.

In the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of conviction, it has been stated that there is no evidence to support the prosecution story of appellant harassing the deceased in any manner. Father of the deceased who claims harassment on the part of the appellant, himself states that he did not have cordial relations with his daughter (deceased) and admits that he used to ask his daughter to seek reimbursement of marriage expenses from the appellant. It has also been stated that Trial Court has overlooked important contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and evidence against the appellant does not evoke confidence in favour of prosecution story hence, appeal is sought to be accepted and it has been prayed that the appellant be acquitted.

Record of the Trial Court was perused. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in all whereas, accused has examined one in his support. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are, Arjun Singh Mehra (PW-1) - father of deceased, Usha Mehra (PW-2) - mother of deceased, Ashok Kumar (PW-8) - maternal uncle of deceased. Witnesses of police department were also examined namely, Purshottam (PW-3), Rajmal Kanwasiya (PW-4), K. S. Solanki (PW-9) and CSP Bittu Sehgal (PW-10). These witnesses apart, prosecution has also examined Executive Magistrates namely, Lakhan Singh Chouhan (PW-5) Nayab Tehsildar and SDM Satyendra Agrawal (PW-11) and two medical experts namely, Dr. G.S. Mittal (PW-6) and Dr. N. N. Hunda (PW-7) have also been examined.

The main question before this Court is whether in view of the grounds in the appeal memo, appellant deserves to be acquitted and if not, whether the quantum of sentence imposed against the appellant is adequate or needs to be altered?

First of all, question which needs to be considered is whether deceased had committed suicide or whether she was enflamed accidentally.

Dr. G. S. Mittal (PW-6) states that on 18.10.2009, while the witness was posted as CMO at M. Y. Hospital, Indore, deceased Renu @ Rekha, wife of appellant was brought to the hospital in burnt condition by her husband and when asked, deceased had told that she was enflamed at the time when she was pouring kerosene oil in the stove while stove was still burning. This shows that deceased had not named the appellant as the person who had set her on fire. Such statements are admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act as dying declaration. Exhibit-P/10 is the medico legal expert report exhibited by this witness. Against the column 'history of the case' such words in Hindi have been written : ^^LVkso esa ?kklysV Mkyrs le; HkHkdus ls ty xbZ 15&20 feuV igys k**

It has been recorded in Exhibit-P/10 that the patient was conscious and talking and there was kerosene oil smell emanating from her body. In her statement made before the medical expert, deceased has not named any one but instead has intimated that the fire was accidental caused by pouring kerosene oil inside the stove which was already burning.

Dr. N. N. Hunda (PW-7), who had conducted the post-mortem of deceased has stated that cause of death was failure of the heart and respiratory system of the deceased due to complications arising out of burning. Post-mortem report is Exhibit-P/11. Thus, there is no evidence of any injuries on the person of the deceased which leads one to believe that cause of death was only due to burns, as already stated. The deceased in dying declaration has stated that fire was accidental. There is no reference by the deceased regarding any kind of harassment meted out to her by the appellant. The witness in para-3 of his court statement has found front portion of body of the deceased affected with burning but not the back part. If the deceased had poured kerosene oil over herself, she would not have poured kerosene oil only on the front portion but would have in all probability poured kerosene oil over her body as a whole, which is not the case here leading to form an opinion that accident was accidental and there was no attempt on the part of the deceased to commit suicide.

Investigating Officer K. S. Solanki (PW-9) states that he had inspected the site where the accident took place and had seized one wick stove and a 5 litre can of kerosene oil containing ½ litre of kerosene oil with its lid closed. A match box was also recovered from the spot, which was already drenched in kerosene. These items apart, blue colour saree worn by the deceased, her burnt petty-coat and other items were seized from the spot as per the seizure memo (Exhibit-P/4). Spot map prepared by the witness is Exhibit-P/12. Thus, it appears that there was indeed a wick stove kept in the room in which the deceased had caught fire. The presence of stove gives impetus to the probability that there was an attempt being made to fill up the stove with kerosene oil and there is no material available to conclude that deceased had infact poured kerosene oil over herself.

Learned Trial Court has formed an opinion that deceased committed suicide and such opinion has been formed on the basis of the fact that no other items of cooking like grains, vegetables etc. were found in the room where the accident had taken place thus, it cannot be stated that the accident had occurred while preparing food. Such conclusion would have been plausible if the deceased had told Dr. G. S. Mittal (PW-6) that she got burnt while cooking. However, as per Dr. G. S. Mittal (PW-6), deceased had told him that she was burnt while pouring kerosene oil in the stove, which was already burning.

As already stated earlier, there is no evidence to the effect that deceased had committed suicide by setting herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil over herself. The presumption as to abetment of suicide under Section 113-A arises only when it is shown when suicide has been committed by the deceased whereas in the present case, it has not been proved that deceased had committed suicide.

As far as the allegation of harassment of deceased by the appellant is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Arjun Singh Mehra (PW-1) the father of deceased, Usha Mehra (PW-2) the mother of deceased and Ashok Kumar (PW-8) the maternal uncle of the deceased.

Arjun Singh Mehra (PW-1) has stated that Renu @ Rekha was his daughter who was studying in BA First Year in the year 2008 and on 27.12.2008, he had received a phone call from the Principal of Girls College that Renu @ Rekha had not turned up for writing her examination. After searching of Renu @ Rekha, a missing report was lodged in the Police Station. Subsequently, on 31.12.2008 phone call of Renu @ Rekha was received by witness that she is staying with appellant at Indore and no attempt be made to search her and that she had already married to appellant-Manish. The witness states that he however met Manish at Indore in January 2009. Subsequently, both were got married by the witness in the month of February 2009.

Witness-Arjun Singh Mehra (PW-1) states that Rekha had come to her maternal house on Holi and thereafter she went back and there was no contact with her and it was only on Dipawali that son of the landlord of the house had informed that Rekha used to live in his house and he called up the witness telling him that Rekha had got burnt. The witness states that thereafter he rushed to Indore along with family members and found Renu @ Rekha admitted in the M.Y. Hospital, Indore. The witness states that Renu @ Rekha was not in a position to talk and was barely humming in response to questions posed to her and she died on the next day. This witness states that he talked to appellant-Manish who told him that Renu @ Rekha had got burnt due to kerosene stove suddenly getting engulfed in flames. This witness does not make any statement regarding harassment meted out to Renu @ Rekha by the appellant. In his examination-in-chief, the witness has been declared hostile and then he supports prosecution story and states that Renu @ Rekha used to tell him that appellant-Manish was harassing her and that Renu @ Rekha had committed a mistake by marrying the appellant-Manish and that she is already facing the consequences of such marriage. The witness states that Renu @ Rekha would tell him that cause of harassment was that the appellant-Manish was unhappy about marrying a low-caste girl which has resulted in severance of ties of the appellant with his family members and the appellant even told Renu @ Rekha to commit suicide so that he may remarry and get accepted in his own community.

While in examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that there was no talk with Renu @ Rekha after she went back to her maternal home in Holi, the same witness after being declared hostile states that Renu @ Rekha had called him up on phone three-four months prior to the incident and had told him about her agony. This witness admits that he is narrating the story regarding Renu @ Rekha telling him about her sorry state of affairs only for the first time before this Court and has not stated such things earlier. In para-19 he says that Renu @ Rekha used to telephone him from STD in absence of Manish. In para-7 of examination-in-chief, this witness states that he had received a call of the son of landlord from Indore that Renu @ Rekha had got burnt but in para-19, he states that on 18.10.2009, Renu @ Rekha had called him from STD at about 9:00 AM. However, in his police statement, there is no mention of Renu @ Rekha calling him up on 18.10.2009. In para-22, he again states that Renu @ Rekha had called him up on 18.10.2009 at 3:00 PM. Thus, there is variation in the statement of witness. On one hand, he says that on 18.10.2009 that he got information through phone that Renu @ Rekha got burnt, but in cross-examination at one place he says that Renu @ Rekha herself had called him on 18.10.2009 at 9:00 AM and immediately thereafter in para-22 he goes on to say that Renu @ Rekha had called him on 18.10.2009 at 3:00 PM, thus, there are major contradictions in the statements of this witness. This witness in para-17 admits that he did not have cordial relations with the deceased (his daughter) and also admits that he had asked the appellant-Manish to bear the expenses of marriage with Renu @ Rekha. In para-24, he further admits that even after Renu @ Rekha had died, he had demanded Rs.25,000/- from the appellant but denies the suggestion that since he did not receive any money, he has deposed against the appellant. One can thus see that not only there are major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Arjun Singh Mehra (PW-1) but from the very beginning he had been demanding money from the appellant as reimbursement of expenses incurred by the witness and demand continued even after the demise of Renu @ Rekha. Thus, the probability cannot be ignored that witness had deposed against the appellant-Manish as he could not get Rs.25,000/- as per his demand.

Usha Mehra (PW-2) is the mother of deceased Renu @ Rekha who states that her daughter had married appellant after running away from her home, but subsequently both were got married finally by the witness. She states that Renu @ Rekha had, after marriage came to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Holi and after returning to her marital home, she received a call from Renu @ Rekha in which Renu @ Rekha had stated that she is beginning to see the repercussions of the marriage which she had contacted with the appellant. She states that her daughter told her that appellant had compelled her to abort unwanted child. Subsequently Renu @ Rekha had called her saying that the appellant has been harassing and beating her as he is unhappy about the fact that the deceased belongs to low-caste and marrying her has resulted in severance of the ties of appellant with his family members and that appellant was goading her to commit suicide. As per this witness, Renu @ Rekha lastly called her on Diwali and told her to come, otherwise she would be killed. Subsequently on the day, after Diwali, Renu @ Rekha again called her saying that appellant and mother-in-law are threatening her and on the same evening at about 7.00 PM the son of the landlord called her and told her that her daughter had gone burnt. The witness, while talking about harassment to her daughter by the appellant, has stated in examination-in-chief that her daughter was made to take abortion pills. However, in para 11 she has been confronted with her police statements at Ex.D/1 in which there are no statements regarding administration of abortion pills to her. In examination-in-chief, the witness states that the appellant would indulge in name-calling her and would tell her that she is of low-caste and that she should died after burning herself. However no such statements are there in the police statements of the witness. This witness further states that she received a call on the Diwali from her daughter who told her that witness must come otherwise she would be put to death. However, such statements are not found in Ex.D/1, the police statements of the witness. Thus, in the evidence of this witness also, there are number of contradictions and omissions.

Witness Ashok Kumar (PW-8), who is the maternal-uncle of deceased says in para 5 of his examination-in-chief that Renu @ Rekha had told him in hospital that she was put on fire by the appellant. However, in cross-examination he has been given a suggestion that in his police statements there is no mention about the fact that Renu @ Rekha had told him that she was set ablaze by the appellant. In examination-in-chief he states that Renu @ Rekha had told him in July, 2009 regarding harassment meted out to her by appellant. However, such statements are not found in police statements (Ex.D/2) of this witness. This witness states that he used to talk to Renu @ Rekha in a gap of 2 to 4 days on phone. However, there is no such mention in his police statements (Ex.D/2). He states in examination-in-chief that Renu @ Rekha had told him that appellant used to tell her that he has lost connection with his own family members due to marrying a low-caste girl. However, there is no such mentioned in the police statements (Ex.D/2) of this witness. Thus, the evidence of this witness is also replete with omissions and contradictions.

Thus, as already seen, in view of major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Arjun Singh Mehra (PW-1), Usha Mehra (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-8), it cannot be concluded that Renu @ Rekha was being subjected to harassment by the appellant due to her belonging to caste lower then that of appellant.

Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellant used to harass the deceased Renu @ Rekha on the ground that she belonged to lower estate of society and community compared to the appellant. Thus, no cruelty has been found to be established in the behaviour of appellant towards the deceased.

As already concluded, the prosecution has failed to prove that Renu @ Rekha had committed suicide. Further the prosecution has failed to prove harassment or cruelty on the part of appellant towards Renu @ Rekha. Consequently, neither it can be said that Renu @ Rekha was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant nor it can be said that Renu @ Rekha had committed suicide due to harassment meted out to her by the appellant. Consequently the appellant could not have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. The conviction and sentence of appellant thus is liable to be set-aside and the appellant is hereby acquitted from charges framed under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

This appeal, consequently, is allowed. The appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not already out on bail. The order pertaining to disposal of property by the Trial Court is affirmed.

The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.