State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sevaram and another

Hon''ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta

The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 6.10.1995 passed by the 3rd Additional Session Judge, Damoh in criminal appeal No. 9/93, by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC and also the respondent Gulab Bai was acquitted from the charge of offence u/s 506B of IPC. Prosecution''s case in short is that the marriage of the victim Ramkumari (PW-3) took place on 11.3.1986. After six months of her marriage, a Gouna took place. In the custom of Chauk, a demand was made by the respondents for sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Shambu Dayal (PW-2), father of the victim Ramkumari gave a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 1 but he was not happy, because he could not get the entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- The victim Ramkumari was kept in the house of the respondents in a bad condition and she was being harassed for recovery of the amount. She was beaten by the respondents and therefore, she wrote so many letters to her parents. Some of the letters (Ex.P/2 to P/5) were submitted in the Court. On 19.5.1987, the respondent Gulab Bai assaulted the victim Ramkumari and she used a force to get the signature of the victim Ramkumari on some blank stamp papers. Ultimately, the victim Ramkumari was thrown out from the house of the respondents. She met with her cousin Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) and thereafter, she had lodged an FIR before the Police Station Kotwali, Damoh. Thereafter, Kanhaiyalal dropped her in the house of her father. A written report was also submitted by Shambu Dayal on 24.5.1987, in which it was claimed that the victim Ramkumari was being harassed for recovery of dowry amount and life of the victim is in danger. Police, Kotwali registered a case. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed.

The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea but they had stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter because there was some gynecological problem to the victim Ramkumari and therefore, she was not ready to get her examination before the doctor. One Constable Manharan Pandey (DW-1) was examined in defence to produce Rojnacha dated 19.5.1987.

Learned J.M.F.C. Damoh vide judgment dated 19.5.1993 convicted the respondents for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC and sentenced them for one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-. He also convicted the respondents for the offence u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for that crime on each of them. The respondent Gulab Bai was also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 506B of IPC and inflicted three months S.I. In criminal appeal No. 9/93, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh vide judgment dated 6.10.1995 allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents from the all charges levelled against them.

During pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 2 expired.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.

For assessment of prosecution evidence, the alleged incident may be considered in two parts. Firstly, the incident relating to taking signature on a blank stamp papers, which was held on 19.5.1987 and secondly, the incident took place prior to that incident. The prosecution has examined Ramkumari (PW-3) and Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) in support of the incident, which was related to the blank stamp. There is a lot of contradiction in the statements given by these two witnesses about the place of the incident. In the FIR (Ex.P/1), there is a small description given about the incident that with the help of Sharad and Purshottam, the respondent Gulab Bai was trying to get the signature of the victim Ramkumari on the blank stamp papers and when the victim Ramkumari refused to put her sign, then she was beaten by the respondent Gulab Bai and thrown out of the house. It is mentioned in the FIR that Kanhaiyalal, nephew of the victim Ramkumari met her in a way, who took her to the Police Station where she has lodged an FIR. It is strange that father of the victim Ramkumari lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) after five days of the incident and he had hidden the facts that the victim Ramkumari was taken to the Police Station and she has lodged an FIR. Ultimately, that FIR (Ex.D/4) was brought before the Court. In this connection, if evidence of the witness Munnalal (PW-8) is perused, then it would be apparent that the victim Ramkumari herself requested him to bring a stamp of Rs. 5/- but on that date, he could not provide the stamp and therefore, he purchased the stamp of Rs. 7/- on 19.5.1987 and provided to Ramkumari. Munnalal is a prosecution witness, who was not declared hostile and therefore, his statements are binding to the prosecution. His such statement was duly corroborated by Dhruv Agrawal (PW-9), who was the stamp vendor. He has stated before the trial Court that he gave a non-judicial stamp to Munnalal in the name of Ramkumari, wife of Sevaram.

It is a case of prosecution that the respondent Gulab Bai had a stamp in her hand and she was creating force upon the victim Ramkumari to put her signature on the stamp but looking to the evidence, given by Munnalal and Dhruv Agrawal, it would be clear that the respondent Gulab Bai did not ask for stamp but it was Ramkumari herself, who purchased the stamp of Rs. 5/- or Rs. 7/- with the help of Munnalal. What was the object of purchasing a blank stamp by Ramkumari? In this connection, evidence given by Munnalal in para 2 may be perused. He has stated that on 18th and 19th May 1987, there was nobody in the house of Sevaram except the victim Ramkumari. The victim Ramkumari was also not available in the house for 3-4 days, prior to 19.5.1987. She came to that house at Damoh from Amanganj, 2-3 days before 19.5.1987. Looking to the statement given by Munnalal, it appears that the victim Ramkumari was sent by her father and other relatives to create a drama that the respondents threatened her to get her signature on the blank stamp papers, otherwise there was no need to the victim Ramkumari to get a stamp purchased with the help of Munnalal. Similarly, first FIR (Ex.D/4) is perused, then it would be clear that the victim Ramkumari could not lodge an FIR in a proper manner, whereas it was written on Rojnamchasanah and therefore, that FIR was hidden by the police. Shambu Dayal, father of the victim drafted a fresh FIR after due consultation with the relatives and filed before the concerned Police Station. Under such circumstances, it would be clear that no such incident took place, in which the respondent No. 3 threatened the victim Ramkumari to put her signatures on the stamp papers. On the contrary, stamp was purchased by the victim Ramkumari herself with the help of Munnalal to create a false allegation and therefore, an FIR was lodged by the Ramkumari, which was hidden by the police. During the trial, that FIR (Copy of Rojnamcha) was not submitted with the challan papers but it was brought in the defence. Under such circumstances, first part of allegations appears to be fake.

It is alleged by the parents and relatives of the victim Ramkumari that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by Sevaram and Rs. 3,000/- was only given to him and therefore, the victim Ramkumari was being assaulted by the respondents. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, this fact came to the record that Sevaram was working at Nagod and he was visiting sometime at Damoh. There is no allegation against the respondent Sevaram that he ever assaulted the victim Ramkumari. On the contrary, it appears that the allegations were made against the respondent Gulab Bai only. In cross-examination of Shambu Dayal and Gauri Shankar, they could not say positively that in whose hands, they had given a sum of Rs. 3,000/- at the time of Chauk. According to the version of the victim Ramkumari, the marriage took place on 11.3.1986 and Chauk took place after six months of her marriage, then it must be in the month of September 1986. The victim Ramkumari says that within 15 days of the Chauk, she was being harassed and therefore, she was writing letters to her father and relatives. Some letters are submitted as Exs.P/2 to P/5. It appears that those letters were given from the February 1987 to May 1987, whereas according to the victim Ramkumari, she was being tortured from the September 1986. Why she had not written any letter to her father in the period of October 1986 to January 1987? Nobody has given the answer of this question. Out of those letters (Exs.P/2 to P/5), only one letter is postcard, whereas remaining letters are the letters given to various relatives by hand. It is strange that some letters were the photocopy from original one and thereafter, it was mentioned by ink, to whom that letter was given. Such type of details are given in the letters (Ex.P/3, P/4 and P/5). Under such circumstances, it is possible that such letters were prepared by the victim Ramkumari and her parents at the time of filing of the FIR, in ante time and ante date, therefore, there is no evidentiary value of such letters.

A letter dated 8.5.1987 is a postcard sent to one Gauri Shankar. In this connection, the evidence of witness Munnalal may be considered again that there was no prohibition upon the victim Ramkumari to visit her parents''house and to come back. It is apparent from his evidence that the victim Ramkumari came from Amanganj to Damoh on or about 14.5.1987 and when she came to the house at Damoh, there was nobody in the house to prohibit the victim Ramkumari for doing anything. Under such circumstances, Ramkumari had an opportunity to create an evidence of postcard in the month of May 1987. Under such circumstances, though Ex.P/2 was a postcard in the month of May 1987 but it could be a cooked document prepared by the victim Ramkumari on the direction given by her father and relatives. By such letters, no evidence is created against the respondents.

If a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made at the time of Chauk then why Shambu Dayal and other relatives did not lodge an FIR against that incident. Shambu Dayal has accepted that after receiving some letters, he went to Jabalpur to see ailing Revaram and at that time, Gulab Bai was staying at Jabalpur. He did not talk about the demand. It would be apparent from the evidence given by the prosecution that when ailing Revaram was staying for his treatment and his wife was also there, whereas Sevaram was working at Nagod, there was nobody at the house at Damoh except the victim Ramkumari, who was visiting to her parents'' house by her wishes so that she could lodge an FIR in the Police Station before such incident of stamp papers. It is already stated that no such incident of stamp papers took place with the victim Ramkumari. On the contrary, she herself prepared a drama to that extent. Under such circumstances, looking to the conduct of the victim Ramkumari, her parents and relatives, it appears that the victim Ramkumari herself retained in the house of her parents from time to time and a false case was created against the respondents. Looking to the entire preparation of evidence, it appears that no harassment was committed with the victim Ramkumari by any of the respondents. If she was being harassed for demanding of Rs. 10,000/- then why it was not mentioned by the victim Ramkumari in FIR (Ex.D/4). Under such circumstances, the demand of Rs. 10,000/- was nothing, but a concocted story prepared by the complainant.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. Evidence was fabricated by the prosecution to implicate the respondents unnecessarily. They tried to get a false report lodged by the victim Ramkumari and when that FIR was not found sufficient, then a concocted FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged after 4-5 days of the alleged incident. Under such circumstances, testimony of the victim Ramkumari and other witnesses cannot be relied upon. The respondents cannot be convicted for any offence as mentioned in the memo of charges appended by the trial Court. Consequently, the State appeal against the judgment of acquittal cannot be accepted.

Consequently, the State appeal directed against the judgment passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in criminal appeal No. 9/93 is hereby dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below with their records for information and necessary action.