January 28, 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges, Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre dismissed the appeal filed in Mst. Anusuiya @ Saraswatibai & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2008.
The case is that the marriage of Rekhabai and Chandrashekhar was performed on
12.05.1989, six months prior to her death. Appellant No.1 is the mother-in-law
of the deceased. On 21.11.1989, a Marg Report was recorded at Chandameta Police
Station that Rekhabai was brought dead in W.C.L. Hospital Bandkuhee by Gajanand.
After preparing the inquest panchanama(Ex.P/8), the dead body was sent for post
mortem. Dr. R.K. Basor performed the post mortem and submitted the report.
According to the Doctor, the death of Rekhabai was quite unnatural. Thereafter
the viscera collected from the dead body was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
for Chemical examination.
On 25.11.1989, Saligram, father of Rekhabai, submitted a written report to the
police station, Chhindwara mentioning therein that her daughter had committed
suicide because her in-laws were harassing her for not bringing dowry in
marriage and demanding one Fan and Rs.500/- from her parents. He further said
that on 19.11.1989, one day before the death of Rekhabai, his daughter and
son-in-law came to his house and stayed there for the night and on the next
morning, his son-in-law again demanded a Fan and Rs.500/- from him and on not
being given the same, he started quarreling and went away saying that
consequence would be heard of the next day. On the next day, when Rekhabai
suddenly became ill, Surendra Pathak(CW-1) examined her on the request of
Chandrashekhar and advised him to take her to the Hospital. On the way to
Hospital, Rekhabai died.
On 30.03.1990, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was received mentioning
therein that the death of Rekhabai was caused by consuming rat poison. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed and by order dated 29.12.1990, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused persons(appellants) denied
the charges.
By judgment dated 02.04.1992, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara
convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A
IPC and sentenced both of them under Section 306 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. So far
as the sentence under Section 498A was concerned, both the appellants were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
The sentences were to run consecutively.
Challenging the judgment of the Trial Court, the appellants (accused) filed
appeal before the High Court.
The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 14.02.2007, partly allowed the
appeal, upheld the conviction but modified the sentence awarded to the
appellants under Section 306 from Seven years to five years and a fine of
Rs.1000/- each, in default, to further undergo RI for three months and so far as
sentence under Section 498A was concerned, it was modified from three years to
two years. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
Against the judgment of the High Court, the accused have filed appeal by way of
special leave before Supreme Court.
The court said that "We have perused the evidence with a view to find out as to
whether the prosecution was able to prove their case under the twin Sections,
namely, Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC, which resulted in death of Rekhabai
and, if so, whether the two Courts below were justified in convicting both the
appellants and awarding to them the sentence as detailed above."
"It is a settled principle of law that if there is no perversity noticed in the
findings of the Courts below and more so when the findings of the two Court
below are of concurrence then such findings would be binding on this Court while
hearing the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Such is the case here."
"It is not in dispute that the appellant No.1-mother-in-law has undergone total
jail sentence for a period of 9 months or so out of the jail sentence awarded to
her, during the pendency of the appeal. It is also not in dispute that she is
now around 75 years of age and is not keeping well. It is also not in dispute
that she is presently on bail granted by this Court."
"So far as appellant No.2-husband is concerned, he too has undergone around 1
year 1 month approx. Apart from what is taken note of above, learned counsel for
the appellants made a statement at the bar that appellant No. 2 has remarried
with a girl from the family of deceased, i.e., the deceased's aunt's daughter
and since then the relations between the two families have become quite cordial."
"So far as appellant No. 1-mother-in-law is concerned, we modify her sentence and
reduce the same to already undergone. In this view of the matter, appellant No.
1-mother-in-law is not required to undergo any more jail sentence."
"So far as appellant No. 2-husband of the deceased, Rekhabai, is concerned, his
sentence is reduced from 5 years to 2 years under Section 306 IPC. So far as
sentence of 2 years awarded under Section 498-A is concerned, it is upheld. The
fine amount awarded in both is also upheld. Both the sentences are to run
concurrently."
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Mst. Anusuiya @ Saraswatibai Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 25.1.2018