Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sultan Khan vs The State Of M.P. on 3 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 67 OF 2000
SULTAN KHAN AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Vyas, senior advocate with Shri Harshvardhan Pathak and
Ms. Nivedita Sharma advocates for the appellants.
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 3.1.2000 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions
Judge, District Ujjain in S.T. No. 55 of 1998, whereby appellants Sultan
Khan and Niyaz Bi were convicted for offence punishable under Section
304 B of IPC and Section 498 A of IPC and were sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years each for both the offences as the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC is minor offence comprised in the
offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC
2 The exposition of facts, giving rise to the present appeal, is as
under:-
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
a. It is undisputed that Sehraj Bi was married to Anwar Khan,
son of accused Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi, around two years before
her death. Sehraj Bi died on 19.10.1997 at the residential house of
the accused.
b. As per the case of prosecution, Allahuddin son of Chand
Khan informed P.S. Ingoriya of District Ujjain on 19.10.1997 that
Pankaj son of Manak has informed him that Sehraj Bi was daubing
the mud at home. She suddenly fell down unconscious and died.
The P.S. Ingoriya registered unnatural death intimation No. 21 of
1997. The dead body of Sehraj Bi was forwarded for postmortem
examination. Dr. S.K. Shrivastava, on postmortem examination
opined vide postmortem examination report (Ex.P-5) that Sehraj
Bi has died due to cardio respiratory failure following suspected
poisoning. Her viscera was preserved and forwarded for chemical
analysis. The Scientific Officer of State Forensic Science
Laboratory, Sagar vide report dated 21.1.1998 (Ex.P-1) opined that
the viscera of deceased Sehraj Bi contains organo chloro
insecticide endosulfan. The statements of relatives of deceased
were recorded. They alleged that Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi had
harassed Sehraj Bi over demand of Rs. 25,000/- to purchase land.
Sehraj Bi had committed suicide feeling distressed by the
harassment. Gafuran Bi, mother of deceased submitted
application dated 24.10.1997 (Ex.D-2) to SDO (P) Badnagar. P.S.
Ingoriya registered FIR Ex. P- for offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC against Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi. Sultan and
Niyaz Bi were apprehended. The statements of witnesses were
recorded. On completion of investigation, final report was
submitted.
3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
c. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnagar committed
the case for trial to the Court of Sessions vide order dated
10.2.1998. Learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
29.4.1998 framed charges for offence punishable under Section 304
B in the alternative Section 306 of IPC and Section 498 A of IPC
against accused Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi. After conclusion of
trial and hearing both the parties, learned Vth Additional Sessions
Judge, Ujjain convicted both the accused for offence punishable
under Section 304 B of IPC and Section 498 A of IPC acquitting
them from charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC
and sentenced them as stated in para 1 of the judgment.
3 Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 03.01.2000, present appeal is filed assailing the
judgment on following grounds:-
(i) The impugned judgment is contrary to the law and facts
on record.
(ii) Learned trial court committed error in not considering
the fact that report is delayed by five days. The statement
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were not recorded immediately
after the incident.
(iii) Learned trial Court committed error in not considering
the major contradiction and inconsistency in the evidence of
prosecution witness. The witnesses are highly interested and
inimical towards the appellants.
4 On these grounds, it is requested that appeal be allowed and the
impugned judgment be set aside.
5 Learned counsel for the appellants, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the appeal memo submits that learned trial Court committed
error in convicting the appellants on sole testimony of Gafuran Bi (PW-
9), mother of deceased. There are material contradictions and
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
inconsistencies in the evidence of Gafuran Bi. The prosecution had failed
to prove that Sehraj Bi died otherwise than in natural circumstances.
There is no evidence regarding harassment over demand of dowry soon
before her death. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 304 B or
Section 498 A of IPC was not made out from the evidence on record.
6 Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the appeal by
submitting that learned trial Court had convicted the appellants on the
basis of evidence on record and given proper reasons for conclusion. The
appeal is meritless.
7 Heard both the parties. Perused the record.
8 The Supreme Court in case of Parvati Devi v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 14 SCC 500 , held as under-
13. As can be seen from the aforesaid provision, for convicting the accused for
an offence punishable under Section 304-BIPC, the following pre-requisites
must be met:
(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily
injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance;
(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years
of her marriage;
(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and
(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to
any demand for dowry.
16. In Maya Devi v. State of Haryana [Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015)
17 SCC 405 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 768] , it was held that :
“23. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main
ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that
“soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
“for, or in connection with the demand for dowry”. The expression
“soon before her death” used in Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. In fact,
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
there is no proximity for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment.
With regard to the said claim, we shall advert to while considering the
evidence led in by the prosecution. Though the language used is “soon
before her death”, no definite period has been enacted and the
expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in both the
enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the period which can
come within the term “soon before her death” is to be determined by
5NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval
should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and
the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a
proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.”
[Also refer to G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka[G.V.
Siddaramesh v.State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 19] andAshok Kumarv.State of Haryana[Ashok Kumar v.State of
Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 266] .]
17. Section 304-B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecution has been
able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment
for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the
court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her
to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, have
caused a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. The said
presumption is, however, rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being
able to demonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients of Section
304-B IPC have not been satisfied.
9 The points for determination in the present appeal are as under:-
1. Whether Sehraj Bi had died within 7 years of her marriage and
her death has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances?
2. Whether accused Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi had subjected their
daughter-in-law Sehraj Bi to cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with demand of dowry soon before her death?
POINT FOR DETERMINATION No.1 – REASONS FOR CONCLUSION
10 Gafuran Bi (PW-9) mother of deceased, Hamid (PW-10) and
Mohd. Hussain (PW-11) brothers of deceased, Bashir (PW-12) father of
deceased have stated that Sehraj Bi was married to Anwar Khan, son of
accused, Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi, two years prior to her death, the
accused did not challenge this fact, therefore, the prosecution has proved
beyond doubt that Sehraj Bi had died within two years of her marriage
with Anwar Khan son of appellants. Appellant Sultan Khan his father-in-
law of Sehraj Bi and appellant Niyaz Bi is mother-in-law of Sehraj Bi.
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
11 Sub Inspector Lal Singh Yadav (PW-7) deposed that on 19.10.1997
around 17:30 hours, Allahuddin son of Chand Khan reported that Sehraj
Bi aged around 18 years has died. He registered unnatural death
intimation (Ex.P-7) and informed SDO (P) Badnagar. The SDO (P)
Raghuvir Singh (PW-13) deposed that during inquest of unnatural death
intimation No. 21 of 1997, he prepared Panchanama (Ex.P-3) of dead
body of Sehraj Bi and forwarded it for postmortem examination.
Chandra Kumar (PW-3) and Ahmad Khan (PW-4) corroborated the
Panchanama (Ex.P-3).
12 Senior Scientific Officer, Prakash Chand Dube (PW-8) deposed
that he had examined the scene of crime on 19.10.1997 around 20:00
hours. The dead body of Sehraj Bi was placed on a cot. Her lips were
light blue coloured. There was no traces of vomit or poisonous substance
on the spot of incident. The spot of the incident was found to be
disturbed. It was informed that the young lady did not have any disease or
ailment. She suddenly fell unconscious and died, therefore, death was
suspicious.
13 Dr. M.K. Pancholi (PW-5) deposed that he, alongwith Dr. S.K.
Shrivastava, Dr. Sandhya Pancholi conducted postmortem examination
of Sehraj Bi wife of Anwar Khan at Civil Hospital, Badnagar on
20.10.1997. It was opinion of the Panel that Sehraj Bi has died due to
cardio-respiratory arrest. Her viscera was preserved for chemical analysis
to ascertain the reason of death. Constable Ram Singh (PW-6) deposed
that he has taken the container containing the viscera and content of
stomach from civil hospital and deposited at Police station, Ingoriya
which was seized vide seizure memo(Ex.P-1). The investigation officer
Raghuveer Singh (PW-13) stated that he had forwarded the viscera for
chemical analysis through the office of the Superintendent of Police. This
7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
evidence remained unrebutted. As per chemical analysis report dated
21.1.1998, the Senior Scientific Officer on examination of viscera of
Sehraj Bi, forwarded by P.S. Ingoriya in relation to crime No. 21 of 1997,
opined that the viscera contains organo chloro insecticide endosulfan.
Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that Sehraj Bi had consumed endosulfan
insecticide which ultimately resulted in her death by cardio-respiratory
arrest.
14 Learned counsel relying on the judgment of Division Bench of the
High Court Madhya Pradesh in the case of Neeraj Vs. State of M.P., 1991
Cri.L.J. 2549 contends that the contents of chemical analysis report
(Ex.C-1) were not put to the accused in their examination under Section 311
of Cr.P.C., therefore, the same cannot be relied on for convicting the
accused.
15 The chemical analysis report of the Scientific Officer, State
Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar was produced before the trial Court
on 24.8.1998. A copy of report was given to learned counsel for the
accused on same day and it was exhibited as Ex. C-1 in presence of
learned counsel for the accused. Thereafter, all the prosecution witnesses
were examined. There was no request by the accused, assailing the
opinion of the Scientific Officer, to call him for the evidence. The
accused were aware of the contents of chemical analysis report and opted
not to assail it during trial. In view of this factual scenario, there appears
to be no prejudice to the accused merely for the reason that the contents
of chemical analysis report (Ex.C-1) were not put to them during
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (Nar singh Vs. State of
Haryana 2015 Cr.L.J. 576; Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
(2010) 10 SCC 439 relied)
16 In view of above discussion, it is apparent that learned trial Court
has committed no error in concluding that Sehraj Bi had died within two
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
years of her marriage and her death had occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION No. 2- REASONS FOR CONCLUSION
17 Gafuran Bi (PW-9) mother of deceased Sehraj Bi deposed that
Sehraj Bi went to her matrimonial home at village Paldona after marriage.
She used to visit her. Sehraj Bi came to her house in the month of Chaitra.
She stayed with her for a month. Sultan Khan, father-in-law of Sehraj
came to take her back. Sultan Khan demanded Rs. 45,000/- to purchase
land. She had given Rs. 20,000/- to Sultan Khan and promised to pay Rs.
25,000/- after harvesting the crop of Soyabean. Gafuran Bi (PW-9)
alleged that Sultan Khan had demanded money to purchase land as they
did not pay the dowry.
18 Gafuran Bi (PW-9) stated that her son Yusuf and his wife Munni
Bai were at her home when she had paid Rs. 20,000/- to Sultan. A month
after this incident, Sehraj Bi came to her house and told her that her
father-in-law, Sultan Khan and mother-in-law, Niyaz Bi are harassing her
over the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/-. She was distressed. Her
sister-in-law (Munni) consoled her and sent her back. Sehraj Bi came to
her house and demanded the money twice thereafter but she was consoled
and sent back. Hamid her brother had also went to meet her.
19 Munni Bi and Yusuf were not examined before the trial Court.
Thus, the evidence of Gafuran Bi (PW-9) remained uncorroborated that
she paid Rs. 20,000/- to Sultan Khan in presence of Yusuf and Munni Bi.
20 As per written complaint (Ex.D-2), Sehraj Bi had informed her
friend Lata Bai with regard to harassment and demand of money by
Sultan Khan. Gafuran Bi (PW-9) in cross-examination paras 20, 21, 22
and 23 had stated that Sehraj Bi had first informed her friend Lata. Lata
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
informed her that Sehraj Bi is harassed at her matrimonial home. Lata
was not examined before the trial Court.
21. Hamid (PW-10), brother of deceased, deposed that Sehraj Bi came
to their house six months after her marriage and informed that her father-
in-law desires to purchase land and demanded Rs. 45,000/-. When Sultan
Khan, father-in-law of his sister, came to take her back, they had paid Rs.
20,000/- to him and promised to pay Rs. 25,000/- after harvesting crop of
Soyabean. Sehraj Bi went back with her father-in-law after taking Rs.
20,000/-. After four months, Sehraj Bi came to her mother and asked for
the remaining Rs. 25,000/- and told that she is harassed by her father-in-
law and mother-in-law for remaining amount. She complained that her
father-in-law and mother-in-law are scolding her and threatening to
divorce her. They consoled Sehraj Bi and sent her back to her
matrimonial home. Hamid (PW-10) further deposed that he went to house
of Sehraj Bi 2-3 months after her visit. Sehraj Bi again complained that
her father-in-law and mother-in-law are pressurizing her for Rs. 25,000/-.
She may consume poison and die. His sister died around 15 days
thereafter.
22 The cross-examination of Hamid (PW-10) reveals that the
statement regarding his visit to matrimonial home of Sehraj Bi is an
exaggeration. In cross-examination para 7, Hamid stated that he did not
inform his mother or police with regard to conversation with Sehraj Bi at
her home. In para 11, Hamid specifically stated that his sister used to tell
her mother and the mother thereafter told him about his sister. His sister
never told him that her father-in-law and mother-in-law are demanding
money. Whatever he had stated is based on information given by his
mother. It goes to show that Hamid (PW-10) is a hearsay witness. He has
10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
alleged the harassment by accused on information given by his mother
Gafuran Bi.
23 Hamid (PW-10) in cross-examination paras 8, 11 and 12 stated that
they have never made a complaint to police that his sister is being
harassed for money. He never confronted husband or father-in-law of
Sehraj Bi with regard to demand of money and harassment of his sister.
He had never spoken to them in this regard. These statements in cross-
examination of Hamid (PW-10) cast serious doubt on the veracity of
allegations made by him in his examination-in-chief. Thus, evidence of
Hamid (PW-10) regarding harassment by accused for money is not
credible.
24 Gafuran Bi PW-9, in para 10 and 17 of her evidence, specifically
stated that her husband Bashir Khan and son Mohd. Hussain was not
aware of the harassment suffered by her daughter Sehraj Bi. They were
informed after death of Sehraj Bi.
25 Mohd. Hussain (PW-11), brother of deceased, deposed that he lives
with his father separately from his mother. When his sister visited mother,
she informed that she is harassed at matrimonial home on demand of
money. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law are demanding Rs. 45,000/-.
His mother had paid Rs. 20,000/- to Sultan Khan and promised payment
of Rs. 25,000/- after harvesting soyabean crop. The evidence of Mohd.
Hussain is materially inconsistent with his previous statement (Ex.D-1).
No such allegation is contained in his previous statement (Ex.D-1).
Mohd. Hussain attempted to explain that he was distressed due to death
of his sister, therefore, he could not state in his previous statement about
demand of Rs. 45,000/-. In cross-examination para 9, Mohd. Hussain
(PW-11) specifically stated that Rs. 25,000/- were not paid in his
presence. When his sister boarded the bus, he came to know that Rs.
11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
20,000/- have been given. Thereafter, he could not meet his sister. After
death of his sister, his mother had informed about demand of Rs.
45,000/-.
26 Bashir Khan (PW-12), father of deceased Sehraj Bi, deposed that
he came to know about death of Sehraj Bi at her matrimonial home in
village Paldona. Sultan Khan threatened him to depose correctly. He
came to know that Sehraj Bi is killed by poisoning. He is not aware why
she was killed.
27 Chandra Kumar (PW-3), neighbour of Sehraj Bi, deposed that
Sehraj Bi used to live infront of his house. He had never seen any quarrel
of Sehraj Bi with Sultan or other family members. Ahmad Khan (PW-4),
uncle of Sehraj Bi and witness of the Panchanama proceeding (Ex.P-3),
deposed that he lives in the neighbour-hood of Sehraj Bi at village
Paldona. He used to visit her matrimonial home. He had never seen any
quarrel or heard about the demand of dowry.
28 In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution
mainly relies on the evidence of Gafuran Bi. Learned trial court also
convicted the appellants relying on the evidence of Gafuran Bi (PW-9).
29 Now it is for consideration, whether the solitary evidence of
Gafuran Bi (PW-9) is trustworthy?
30 The Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh and Others Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 7 SCC 157, while considering the
appreciation of oral testimony of a witness referred to the dictum of law in
Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 and observed as
under :
12. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this
Court in its celebrated judgment in the case of Vadivelu Thevar (supra):
“11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well
established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality
and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or
12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context
may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or
may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be
above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or
subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial.”
13. It could thus be seen that this Court has found that witnesses are of
three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is “wholly
reliable”, the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction
or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness.
Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is “wholly unreliable”, there
would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be
based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of
witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial.
31 The Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 deliberated upon psychology of
the related witness and held as under :-
48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a
few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral
statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements
are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last
time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close
relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would
naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have
been stated to them at all. Not that is done consciously but even
unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a
psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the
court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution.
Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the
whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis
against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not
or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated
unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is
punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it.
13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
32 In the case of Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21
the Supreme Court explained the terms “sterling witness” as under :-
“22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very
high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.
The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to
accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What
would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the
initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and
consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not
be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be
in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room
for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as
well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each
and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and
the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to
the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not
be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty
of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it
can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on
which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said
witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all
other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the
Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other
supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
33 The dismay, pain and agony of Gafuran Bi for loss of her young
daughter can be inferred. Initially, she did not make any complaint
immediately on death of her daughter, but after five days, instead of
lodging of FIR, she submitted a written complaint (Ex.D-2), prepared by
a lawyer, with the SDO(P) Badnagar that too after the statements during
inquest. In para 29, Gafuran Bi (PW-9) stated that she demanded return of
money from the accused after death of her daughter but they declined. In
14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
view of these circumstances, the inconsistency in evidence of Gafuran Bi
assumes significance.
34 There are material inconsistencies in the evidence of Gafuran Bi
(PW-9) with reference to her earlier statements and the written report
(Ex.P-2), regarding the amount paid and demanded, the time of payment
of the money and the visit of her daughter Sehraj Bi complaining about
harassment for money by the accused. The trial Court dismissed the
defence contentions, citing human memory’s fragility and Gafuran Bi’s
status as a rustic villager. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are not
acceptable and appropriate since Gafuran Bi had made specific statement
with regard to payment of Rs. 25,000/- in month of Ashadh in written
complaint (Ex.D-2). Later, all the relatives of Sehraj Bi including Gafuran
Bi have deposed that Rs. 20,000/- were paid in month of Ashadh,
remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid after harvesting
soyabean crops. Gafuran Bi (PW-9) deposed that her daughter had visited
her for first time after six months of marriage, whereas, the month of
Ashadh fell after three months of her marriage.
35 The investigation officer Raghuveer Singh (PW-13) stated that he
conducted Panchnama (Ex.P-3) in presence of Panch witness of the dead
body of Sehraj Bi. During inquest proceeding, he recorded statements of
Mohd. Hussain, Sultan Khan, Bizan, Niyaz Bi, Anwar Khan, Mahboob
Khan and Ajij Khan. On 24.10.1997, Gafuran Bi submitted an application
(Ex.D-2). He recorded statement of Gafuran Bi, Lata Bai, Amit, Hasina
Bai and Munni and thereafter registered FIR (Ex. P-9). Constable
Manohar (PW-2) stated that parents of the deceased and brother Hussain
were present at the time of Panchanama and postmortem. Chandra
Kumar (PW-3) and Ahmad (PW-4) deposed that parents and brother of
deceased Sehraj Bi were present at the time of her final rites.
15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
36 Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the
statements of witness recorded under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. during the
inquest proceeding were deliberately suppressed in trial. Learned counsel
referred to the order dated 10.12.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Ujjain (Ex.D-4) to contend that the appellants were granted anticipatory
bail because during inquest proceeding, the parents and brother of
deceased in their statement on 20.10.1997 suspected none and have
expressed that there was no issue at matrimonial home of Sehraj Bi.
37 Thus, the relatives of Sehraj Bi were present at the time of autopsy
and final rites. They did not make any complaint regarding harassment or
demand of money by father-in-law or mother-in-law of Sehraj Bi. They
did not allege harassment for money in the inquest statements. The
allegations were first made in the written complaint dated 24.10.1997
submitted by Gafuran Bi to SDO (P) Badnagar. In view of the aforestated
factual scenario, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the allegation of
harassment for money was made after premeditation and consultation. It
creates doubt on veracity of the allegations.
38 Gafuran Bi PW-9, in cross-examination in para 28 and 29 stated
that her daughter asked for money to purchase land. Her daughter told her
that she and her husband desire to live separate from her in-laws. They
will purchase land and live peacefully. This indicates a different aspect of
the allegations concerning the demand for funds. The possibility cannot
be ruled out that Sehraj Bi desired to live separate from her in-laws and
wanted to purchase land, so she was pressing her mother to provide
money. It is pertinent to note that no allegation is ever made against
husband of Sehraj Bi. Further, Gafuran Bi had stated that she had paid Rs.
20,000/- to Sultan Khan by hands of Sehraj Bi but there is no positive
evidence that Sultan Khan had ever demanded the money directly from
16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
Gafuran Bi or other relatives. None of the witnesses had stated that they
confronted Sultan Khan or Niyaz Bi regarding demand of money.
Learned trial Court brushed away this material circumstance lightly on
the ground that Gafuran Bi is rustic villager, therefore, on such statement
her evidence cannot be discarded.
39 Gafuran Bi (PW-9) deposed that Sehraj Bi came to her for last time
around 25 days before her death. Hamid (PW-10) had stated that he
visited matrimonial home of his sister fifteen days before her death when
she complained about harassment by the accused, but this statement was
found to be unworthy of credence in earlier discussion at para 21 of the
judgment. Thus, the evidence on record shows that the deceased had met
her relatives, specially, mother Gafuran Bi almost a month before her
death. When she was promised payment of the remaining amount after
harvesting soyabean crops. There is no evidence on record that the crop
of soyabean was harvested any time before death of Sehraj Bi. The
prosecution has failed to present the circumstances which prompted,
triggered or compelled Sehraj Bi to consume poison. There is no evidence
of communication of Sehraj Bi with her mother or other relatives soon
before her death in this regard. Therefore, the live and proximate link
between the demand of money by the accused and the death of Sehraj Bi
was not established by the prosecution.
40 In view of above discussion, the sole testimony of Gafuran Bi is
not fully reliable and trustworthy, therefore, corroboration in material
particulars was needed. The appreciation of evidence on record manifests
that Hamid (PW-10), Mohd. Hussain (PW-11) and Bashir (PW-12) are
hearsay witness. Other witness and circumstances do not corroborate
testimony of Gafuran Bi. Learned trial Court committed an error in
relying on uncorroborated testimony of Gafuran Bi to conclude that
17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8863
Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi had harassed Sehraj Bi for money. Prosecution
had failed to establish the foundational facts that Sehraj Bi was subjected
to harassment and cruelty by Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi for or in relation
to demand of dowry soon before her death. Consequently, learned trial
Court committed error in convicting the accused Sultan Khan and Niyaz
Bi for offences punishable under Section 304 B and 498 A of IPC.
41 Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2000 passed by the learned
Vth Additional Sessions Judge, District Ujjain in S.T. No. 55 of 1998 is
set aside. The appellants-Sultan Khan and Niyaz Bi are acquitted of the
charges of aforestated offences. They shall be set at liberty forthwith.
Their personal bond and surety bond stand discharged. The
accused/appellants shall be entitled for remittance of fine amount, if
deposited. The order of trial court with regard to disposal of property is
affirmed.
42 A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the trial Court alongwith
the original record forthwith.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
Digitally signed by BHUNESHWAR DATT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
BHUNESH
PRADESH BENTCH AT INDORE, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENTCH AT
INDORE,
2.5.4.20=3fb5bcda9fd75d95d6c7cdcbd092e
WAR DATT
e5a74a94a5534aed3a66d9385cfcfc201e0,
postalCode=452001, st=MADHYA PRADESH,
serialNumber=89FD75A8D0C99E05779A327
974E46BC85102826CE0604B211E4C91102B
4D1269, cn=BHUNESHWAR DATT
Date: 2025.04.03 18:59:59 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link