Poshan Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The appeal is arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2005, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Case No.189/2005, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them for rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 250/- each appellants in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month to each appellants.

¶19

2. Brief facts of the prosecution’s case is that, the deceased Rohini Bai was brought to the CHC, Bhatapara on 11.03.2005, at about 04:50 PM in 80-90% burnt condition, written intimation to the Police Station, Bhatapara (rural) was given by doctor vide Ex. (P/12) at 05:20 PM on

¶20

-2-

¶21

the same day and she started treatment. Looking to the serious condition of the injured she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur, for further management vide Ex.P/15. When the relatives of the deceased taken her to Medical College Hospital, Raipur, on the way she succumbed to her burn injuries and then her relatives have taken her back to the CHC, Bhatapara and then written intimation Ex.P/16 was given by doctor (PW-8) to the Police Station Bhatapara (rural).

¶22

3. Based on the written information Ex. P/16, the merg intimation Ex.P/22 was recorded by the police, on the same day, at about 21:30Hrs., inquest Ex.P/2 was prepared in presence of the witnesses, body was sent for postmortem, where Dr. Jagrati Agrawal PW-8 has conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased and found that total 84% superficially to deep burn injuries on various parts of the body. The burn injuries are antimortem in nature and smell of kerosene is coming from the body. She opined that the mode of death is shock due to burn and death occurred within 18 hours from postmortem, she gave the postmortem report Ex.P/17.

¶23

4. FIR Ex.P/18 was recorded on 28.03.2005 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. The statements under Section 161 of CrPC of the witnesses have been recorded, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/9 and D/4. While the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 11.03.2005, the police authorities have asked the doctor to record her dying declaration but same could not be recorded because of the reason that the patient’s condition is poor and not in a state of giving statement. The certificate of the doctor has been obtained vide Ex.P/14.

¶24

5. Various seizures of burnt piece of clothes from the body of deceased, kerosene cane, kerosene lamp, match box, plain soil and soil contents with smell of kerosene seized from the spot was sent for FSL

¶25

-3-

¶26

examination. The appellant/accused persons were arrested on 12.04.2005 and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda-Bazar under Sections 304(B)/34 of IPC against the accused persons. The case was committed for its trial to the Sessions Judge, Raipur, fromwhere it has been transferred for its trial to First Additional Sessions Judge, BalodaBazar.

¶27

6. The trial Court has framed charges on 20.07.2005, under Section 304(B) of IPC against the accused persons, thereafter on 18.11.2005, the charges under Section 498-A, has also been framed against the accused persons. When the charges under Section 498-A of IPC was added, an opportunity was given to the prosecution as well as defence to get their witnesses examined and re-examined, as also crossexamined and re-cross-examined, but they were stated that they didn’t want to examine or cross-examine or re-examine or re-cross-examine any of the witnesses, who have already been examined. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC have been recorded. The accused persons have examined one defence witnesses in their favour. After considering the evidences available on record the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Section 304(B) of IPC, however the accused persons have been convicted for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned at para -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶28

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submits that the appellants are innocent and are being falsely implicated in the case, no case is made out against the appellant as alleged. There are material omission and

¶29

-4-

¶30

contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witness and the trial Court has dis-believed the evidence for the offence under Section 304B of IPC and therefore, their statement cannot be considered for conviction of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶31

8. He would further submit that there is no evidence on record with respect to any harassment or torture made by the accused persons to the deceased, therefore, the accused persons are entitled for their acquittal.

¶32

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State had vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused persons. There are sufficient evidence available on record to hold the accused persons are guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Had the accused persons not been harassed the deceased, she would not have died in unnatural circumstances and thus, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶33

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pursue the record.

¶34

11. PW-1, who is the villager have stated that the marriage to the deceased Rohini Verma with Poshan Verma is the exchange marriage (Gurawat), he said that upon compliant made by Poshan Verma that deceased used to go to her parents house, he asked her then she said that since her in-laws were quarreling with her and therefore, he used to went to her parents house and on this issue meeting was also convened in the village and the accused persons were asked not to do so, after some days of the meeting, the deceased had died due to burn injuries. In cross-examination, this witness says that from the behaviour of the deceased, he felt that she was mentally not sound. PW-2, Prahalad Verma, who is also a villager have stated that the marriage of the deceased with the Poshan is the exchange marriage (Gurawat) , when

¶35

-5-

¶36

the father of the deceased came to his village and disclosed that he came there to left his daughter to her matrimonial house and left her there. Thereafter he heard that Rohini Bai died due to burn injuries, when this witness was asked from Rohini Bai, why she set herself on fire ?, then she said that her in-laws have not sent her to her parents house and therefore she set herself on fire. This witness further says that while taking deceased to Raipur from Bhatapara Hospital, on the way she died.

¶37

12. This witness further said that in the hospital when he asked from her she disclosed that her husband have not sent her to her parents house, therefore, she set herself ablazed.

¶38

13. PW-3, Gourishankar Verma, who is father of the deceased have stated in his deposition that accused persons had beaten her daughter on account of demand of dowry, two months prior to her death, she came to his house and disclosed the facts of harassment and after pacify her, he sent her back to her in-laws house. The accused persons were demanded fan, T.V., Cooler etc. and they used to beat her repeatedly. In village meeting also the deceased disclosed the facts that accused persons were usually beaten her on account of demand of dowry. After two months of village meeting the incident occurred. This witness remained firm in his cross-examination with respect to harassment given by the accused persons to his daughter, but for minor contradiction nothing in his deposition brought on record by defence which makes the evidence of this witness doubtful. Similarly the statement of PW-4 Godawari Bai, who is mother of the deceased, she too have stated the same version as PW-3 her husband stated, she too remain firmed in her cross-examination, regarding harassment by the accused persons to her daughter.

¶39

-6-

¶40

14. PW-5, who is maternal Uncle of the deceased. He is also witness of harassment given to the deceased and supported the prosecution’s case.

¶41

15. PW-6, Kulmat Bai, who is neighbour of the accused persons who stated that when the deceased set herself on fire, on being raising the hue & cry, she immediately went there and extinguish the fire, where, on being asked from deceased Rohini Bai, she disclosed the fact that since her husband have not sent her to her parents house she set herself on fire.

¶42

16. Close scrutiny of evidence makes it clear that deceased was being harassed by her in-laws which was informed by her to her parents and for that a village meeting was also convened and the parties were advised not to do so. Convening the village meeting with respect to the disputes between the deceased as well as her in-laws Itself shows that there was the allegation of harassment given by accused persons to the deceased. The mother and father of the deceased have specifically stated in their deposition that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons, therefore, she used to come to her parent’s house which further corroborated from the evidence of Govind, who is maternal uncle of the deceased.

¶43

17. From the evidence available on record, the trial Court had comes into the conclusion that the accused persons were used to harass the deceased and beaten her and that was the reason she set herself on fire and has found that offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out against the accused persons. The judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court does not suffers with any perversity and illegality and therefore the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A of IPC is maintained.

¶44

18. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the incident is of the year

¶45

-7-

¶46

2005, considerable period of about 18 years have been lapsed and the accused persons are settled in their life. Section 498-A of IPC is provided punishment of imprisonment for a term, which may extended to 3 years and shall also liable to fine. The appellant No.1 Poshan was remained in jail from 12.04.2005 to 22.11.2005, which comes to total period of 7 months and 11 days and the appellant Nos.3 & 4 were remained in Jail from 12.04.2005 to 03.08.2005, which comes to total period of 3 months and 22 days, no fruitful purpose would be served, if they again would sent to Jail and therefore, appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone by them for the offence of 498-A of IPC alongwith the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each of the appellants. The fine amount shall be deposited within 2 months from today, failing which the appellants shall undergo further R.I. for one month. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.15,000/-, an amount of Rs.12,000/- is to be paid to the complainant as compensation as provided under Section 357 of the CrPC and if the complainant is found to be dead, the same is to be paid to his legal heirs. If the fine amount as ordered by the trial Court is already deposited the same may be adjusted towards the total fine amount.

¶47

19. At present the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are continued for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of the CrPC. The appeal is partly allowed with the extent indicated here in above.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶50

Ravi Mandavi

Poshan Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poshan Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitranjan Choudhary Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/S Tiwari Constructions Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bighneshwar Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmi Narayan Singhania (Died) Through Legal Heirs Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sunderlal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shravan Kumar Sori Vs State of Chhattisgarh