Allowed

Revti and Others v. State

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022CRLA/17/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's conviction under Section 201 IPC, holding that acquittal in the main charge of abetment to suicide precludes conviction for concealing evidence. Conviction required proof that an offence occurred and the accused screened the offender.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellants acquitted of Section 201 IPC; direction to file bail bonds.

Revti and Others Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

A.F.R.

¶3

Reserved On: 19.09.2022 Delivered On: 04.11.2022

¶4

Court No. - 90

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 17 of 1990

¶6

Appellant :- Revti And Others Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- R. Bhargava,Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the convictappellants, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.1989 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1989, State Vs. Revti and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 1987, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 201 I.P.C. with one year R.I. It was also directed that the period spent by the accused in jail shall be adjusted towards the sentence imposed as above.

¶10

The order sheet shows that the appeal was admitted by this Court as far back as on 4.1.1990 and on the same day both of the appellants were enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶11

Pursuant to the communication of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in compliance of the order of this Court dated 17.12.2018, the Office has submitted its report dated 27.2.2021, a perusal whereof shows that appellant no.5, namely, Dalla has died. The death confirmation report is accompanied with requisite documents as per the circular of this Court. In view of the said fact, this criminal appeal qua appellant no.5- Dalla,

¶12

¶13

stands dismissed as abated and appeal shall proceed in respect of the surviving appellants, only.

¶14

Prosecution case as appears on perusal of record is that in the night of 7/8.9.1987, Smt. Sondevi, who was married to appellant No.1-Revti, attempted to commit suicide. According to the prosecution, in the evening of the date of occurrence, at about 4 P.M. there had been some exchange of words between Revti and Sondevi, Revti told her not face him and she should die. Feeling depressed, she took poisonous pills and died in the night. The accused above named took the dead body for funeral. Thereafter Madan sprinkled kerosene oil over the dead body of Sondevi and burnt her. Kajoli, Digamber and others had seen the occurrence. Report about the incident was lodged by Bharat Singh on 8.9.1987 at 7:30 A.M. Police registered a case at G.D. No.12. Sri Tomar, Investigating Officer of this case, immediately proceeded to the spot, funeral-ground and collected burnt ashes and bones and prepared Fard (Ex.Ka-4) and after investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The case was committed to Court of Session for trial which was transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Session Judge, Mathura by orders of Session Judge

¶15

Burnt ashes and bones, recovered by the Investigating Officer were sent to the chemical examination, but no poisonous contents were detected.

¶16

Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 306/201 I.P.C. framed against them respectively, and alleged false implication on account of enmity.

¶17

Prosecution to prove its case examined PW-1 Kajoji and P.W.-2 Digamber. Kajoli has staed that thee was some exchange of words in between Sondevi & Revti. Revti said her that she should die, in as much as she had not given a birth to a male child, and Sondevi took the poisionous pills and in the night she died. Madan, Revti, Bheema, Dalla,

¶18

¶19

Baby and Girraj took her dead body to funeral ground and Madan sprinkled kersine oil upon her dead body and burned her to ashes. To the same effect is the statement of Digamber- P.W.-2.

¶20

PW-3 Kashi Nath has been declared hostile. PW-4 Bharat Singh is the informant of the case. He has proved report (Ex.Ka-1). PW-5 S.I. L.K.Tomar, is the Investigating Officer of the case, he proved recovery memo of burnt ash and bone (Ex.Ka-4), chemical examiner report (Ex.Ka-5), chargesheet (Ex.Ka-6) and G.D. (Ex.Ka-7).

¶21

Accused examined one Damodar in support of their defense plea. He has stated that he was made to sign on a plain paper by the SubInspector and Revti had never scolded his wife. Son Devi had not consumed poision and she died natural death.

¶22

Learned court below referred Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:-

¶23

“ 113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman . —When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”

¶24

Learned court below observed that according to the prosecution version, the deceased was married about 8 years back and thus, presumption contained under Section 113-A I.P.C. cannot be made against the convict-appellants.

¶25

Now remains the oral evidence of Kajoli and Digamber. From their evidence, no doubt, it is clear that Smt. Sondevi had taken poisonous pills and later on committed suicide, but thee is no evidence to show that it was

¶26

¶27

necessarily on account of any scolding extended by Revti, or any other family member of her in-laws. So the evidence on record falls short of proof for offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

¶28

On the basis of above finding, the trial court has recorded conviction of the appellants under Section 201 I.P.C. and acquitted them of the charge punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the evidence on record falls short of proof for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The accused were granted interim bail by the trial Court after conviction.

¶29

Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, present criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the convicted persons with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the court below against the appellants.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants raised several contentions on merits of the case and submitted that as appellants have been acquitted in main offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and their conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. is illegal. Learned counsel for the appellants raised a question of law as to whether the conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. could have been maintained by acquitting him of the main offence under Section 306 I.P.C.. He further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses are unreliable. No family members of the deceased have come into the picture either as witness or as informant of the case. The witnesses of prosecution are the villagers, who have implicated the appellants due to previous enmity. There is no scientific evidence in support of the prosecution version that the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance or committed suicide. The consistent version of the defence is that she had died on account of a natural death and that is why she was cremated by convict persons who are husband and family members of the deceased in usual course. There is no witness of the fact that she and consumed poison or committed suicide. The evidence of

¶31

¶32

witnesses is based on hearsay. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and for acquittal of appellants from charge punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.

¶33

Learned A.G.A. countenances the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no factual and legal error in the present judgement and it is based on evidence on record. Thee is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of witnesses of fact, who have supported the prosecution version.

¶34

No appeal appears to have been filed against the verdict of acquittal passed by the court below under Section 306 I.P.C. in respect of the appellants, therefore, this Court has to concentrate on verdict of conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. passed against the appellants.

¶35

The first information report in present case was lodged by P.W.4 Bharat Singh, who has testified during trial that his father was chaukidar (watchman) of the village at the time of incident. He had gone out of village. He had heard in the morning that Son Devi had consumed poison and died. He was not aware as to for what reason she had consumed poison. Her last rituals were performed by cremation. He had informed the incident to police outpost orally, which was scribed by the police constable. The report is Exhibit Ka-1, which bears his signature. It was written by the police constable as per his version. He resides in village Mora. He did not reside in village Nagla. He did not know as to who burnt her.

¶36

P.W.1- Kajoli and P.W.2- Digamber Singh have been examined by the prosecution as witnesses of fact and learned court below has lace partial reliance on testimony of these witnesses to the charge under Section 201 I.P.C.. However, P.W.1 Kajoli stated before the court that accused Revati- the husband of the deceased had exhorted the deceased, who was his wife on fateful evening that she could not give birth of a son, so he did not want to see her face. She should die and she consumed

¶37

¶38

poisonous tablet in the night and died. The witnesses stated that he was not literate and he did not know the dates and did not inform the investigating officer about the date of incident. He cannot understand as to how he has stated in his statement the date of incident. The house of Revati lies after 10 to 15 houses from the home of witness. He has filed an affidavit before the Investigating Officer marked as Ex.-Kha-1 and it was rightly got written by him. In his written affidavit the facts are based on the information received by him by village watchman and he had told him that Son Devi was killed. He was passing through the house of Revati in the evening of incident and heard voice of Revati that he was exhorting his wife. Narayan and Digamber were coming out side of the house of Revati. Then he also visited the house of Revati. He had heard these things on the shop of bidi and he had not told the investigating officer that he had heard the voice of Revati (accused) from the bidi shop. The first informant is son of Gullu Chaukidar and they are resident of Nagwa Mora. The accused who are present in the court had cremated the body of Son Devi and the accused Madan had sprinkled kerosene oil on dead body of Son Devi before it was ignited. The deceased had never delivered a child.

¶39

PW-3 Kashi Nath has been declared hostile as he has not supported case of the prosecution. PW-2 Digamber Singh is the star witness of the prosecution, who has stated that deceased had given birth of a daughter, who died and she had not given birth to a male child. Around two year and one month ago, he was sitting with Revati and both were smoking Hukkah, then Revati had threatened his wife for not giving birth to a male child, evenafter 8 years of the marriage and said that you should die. Deceased had consumed poison in the same night and died. Accused persons took the dead body in cremation ground and burnt it after sprinkling kerosene oil. He had cautioned the accused persons to avoid cremation of dead body in such manner but they did not pay the heed. He had not reported this matter to anyone. This witness was given suggestion

¶40

¶41

by defense that accused Madan and his brother were challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C., to which he denied.

¶42

Some contradictions are suggested by defense in sworn testimony of PW-2 and his previous statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. although case diary is not available on record.

¶43

Paper No.9-A/1 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 28.10.1988, which is marked as Ex.Ka-5, in which it is stated that no metallic poison was found in ashes and bones, which was sent for scientific examination in present case i.e. Case Crime No. 332 of 1987, under Sections 306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. There is no plausible evidence, whether in form of oral or documentary that the deceased had consumed poison in that fateful night. The consistent case of the defense is that she died a natural death and the accused were implicated in a manufactured case due to village rivalry. No complaint or FIR has been lodged from the side of parents of the deceased. An affidavit has been found on record purportary filed by Vishal, father of deceased- Son Devi, dated 10.9.1987, which is addressed to Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Mathura, in which it is stated that the deceased had given birth to a female child who subsequently died. The deceased died natural death in the night of 7/8.9.1987 and she was cremated on 8.9.1987 before co-villagers of village Nagla Morra, in accordance with Hindu rites. She was never tortured or harassed by her husband or her in-laws. Original Health Card of the child of Son Devi, wife of Revati Singh dated 11.6.1986 has also been filed by the defence in support of the version that she has given birth to a female child on 11.6.1986. Charge under Section 306 I.P.C. has not been found to be proved against accused persons before trial court and they were acquitted of this charge. Therefore, it can be inferred that no offence of abatement to commit suicide has been proved against accused persons. Suicide, as such, is no offence and this is logical that suicide self is not proved by cogent evidence and accused cannot be held guilty for causing

¶44

¶45

disappearance of evidence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. for making out a case under Section 201 I.P.C. It is mandatory that the accused was knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 265-266 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016) Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs. The State of Gujarat, decided on 12.2.2018, has placed reliance on the dictum of Apx Court in the case of Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab , wherein it is held as follows:

¶46

“In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, — mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient, — that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.” AIR 1952 SC 354 AIR 1953 SC 131 AIR 1968 SC 829 The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.”

¶47

Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing and considering various case laws in Dinesh Kuamr Kalidas Patel's case, in which appellant was convicted under Section 498-A, 201 I.P.C. has held:

¶48

“thus, the law is well-settled that a charge under Section 201 of the IPC can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to

¶49

¶50

believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person.

¶51

It is further held that We are afraid, the High Court is not justified in maintaining the conviction under Section 201 only on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-mortem had not been performed. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the father of the deceased and her brother (who is a doctor) had attended the last rites of the deceased and neither of them had any complaint or suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the suicide note left by the deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame on herself. Yet the court has taken the view, from the consideration we have extracted from paragraph-16 of the Sessions court judgment, that the deceased might have been in a state of depression having remained alone for most of the time and it amounted to torture. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A by the High Court, and rightly so. The prosecution has also not been able to satisfy the ingredients under Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court has any case that there is any intentional omission to give information by the appellant to the police. It is also to be noted that prosecution has no case under Section 201 of the IPC

¶52

¶53

against the appellant.

¶54

As held by this Court in Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan, the mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of the IPC. Unless the prosecution was able to establish that the accused person knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be convicted.”

¶55

Therefore, in the light of the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, this fact is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had died an unnatural death by consuming poison in the fateful night. The accused are already acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC by the learned trial Court and said verdict of acquittal has not been challenged either by the State or by the complainant. Enmity between accused and witnesses has been suggested by the defence, however, same has been denied by the witnesses Kajoli and Digamber, in their sworn testimony.

¶56

In view of above, reasoning of above cited judgements of Apex Court is applicable where it is held that mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death, could not be sufficient to bring home charge punishable under Section 201 IPC unless the prosecution was able to establish that the accused persons knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and have done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be convicted.

¶57

Thus, as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Court is not justified in convicting the appellants under Section 201 IPC and the same cannot be sustained.

¶58

Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.12.1989 in S.T. No.145 of 1989, passed by Additional Session Judge- IInd, Mathura is

¶59

¶60

hereby set aside and the appellants namely, Revati, Babu Lal, Girraj, Bheema and Madan are acquitted of the charge u/s 201 I.P.C.

¶61

It is directed that the accused-appellants shall file bail bonds to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and two sureties each, in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of one month from today in compliance of Section 437 (a) of Cr.P.C.

¶62

Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned for immediate compliance.

¶63

Order Date :- 4.11.2022

¶64

Kamarjahan

¶65

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.11.16 17:05:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Revti and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revti and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rifakat Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Sehwaz Vs State of U.P.

Jay Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chhatra Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jwala Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nizam Vs State of U.P.