MOTI LALversusSTATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

A                                    MOTi LAL
                                          v.
                    STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

                                JANUARY 20, 2004

B                 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]


          Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2)/Penal Code, 1860;
    Section 306 rlw Section 34 and Section 498A/Constitution of India, 1950;

C         Article 136:

           Husband having illicit relationship with his relative and harassing wife
    for demand of dowry-Wife committed suicide-Trial Court fo11nd acc11sed
    guilty under Sections 498 and 306 rlw Section 34 /PC, and convicted and
    sentenced him accordingly-Affirmed by the High Court--On appeal, Held:
D   Both the Courts below had independently considered the material on record-
    Case of the prosecution for demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased
    thereto fully substantiated-In view of serious nature of the offence, quantum
    of sentence cannot be said to be on the higher side-No infirmity to warrant
    interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
E
          Code of Criminal Procedure; 1933; Section 235 (2):

         Sentencing-Non compliance with the provisions-Accused not seeking
    adjournment/grant of time for making submission on the sentence before the
    Courts below-Hence, cannot allege non-compliance of the provisions.
F
          According to the prosecution, accused No.I-appellant had been
    harassing his wife for demand of dowry and was having illicit relationship
    with his sister-in-law/accused No.2. The ill-treatment and harassment
    continued unabated despite his in-laws meeting his demands. Ultimately,
    she consumed pesticide poison and died. Post mortem examination was
G   done and, on completion of investigation by the Police, charge sheet was
    submitted. Trial Court found accused No.I guilty of the offences under
    Section 306 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A IPC, and convicted and
    sentenced him accordingly. However, it acquitted accused No.2. High
    Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal.

H                                        854
                    MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)          855
-""        It was contende!f for the appellant that the material on record was A
      not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant; that the deceased
      consumed poison to commit suicide on her own, owing to suffering from
      stomach pain; and that the provisions of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. have not
      been complied with.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                      B
           HELD: I. I. The grievance sought to be made on the alleged non-
      compliance with the provisions in Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., does not merit
      countenance. 1858-F)

          Narpa/ Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR (1977) SC 1066 and      C
      Ramdeo Chauhan alias Rajnath v. State of Assam, 120011 5 SCC 714, relied
      on.

           Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, [1976) 4 SCC 190, distinguished.

            1.2. The order of the Trial Court would disclose that the verdict of D
      guilt was pronounced and after hearing the accused the order sentencing
      the appellant was separately passed on the same day. It is not the case of
      the appellant that he sought for an adjournment or grant of further time
      for making submission on the sentence and it was refused. No grievance
      in that behalf by the appellant appears or shown to have been made before E
      the High Court either in the memorandum of appeal or at the time of
      argument. Hence the appellant cannot make any legitimate grievance at
      any rate on the alleged non-compliance with Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
                                                                      [859-E-H[
            1.3. Both the Courts below have undertaken an independent F
      consideration of the materials on record in the light of the contentions
      urged on behalf of the appellant and yet found the prosecution case fully
      substantiated on the basis of concrete and relevant materials brought on
      record. The defence plea as to want of sufficient proof for demand of
      additional dowry and harassment on that account and as to the appellant
      being in possession of sufficient resources in Bank have been considered G
      elaborately and found rejected for valid and relevant reasons supported
      by concrete materials produced. The ample materials on record
  "   overwhelmingly support the factual findings concurrently recorded by
      both the Courts below and they are not shown to be vitiated for any
      infirmity whatsoever to call for or justify the interference of this Court
                                                                                 H
    856                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004) I S.C.R.

A iri the appc~al filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Keeping
    in view the serious nature of the offences, the quantum of sentence also
    cannot be said to be on the higher side, for showing any further leniency.
                                                                    [860-A-E)
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
B 455 of 2003.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.2003 of the Chattishgarh
    High Court at Bilaspur in Crl. A. No. 931 of 1989.

          Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellant.
c         Rudreshwar Singh and Prakash Shrivastava for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          D. RAJU, J. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of
D a learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 30.1.2003 in
    Criminal Appeal No.931 of 1989 wherein the learned Judge, while affirming
    the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, dismissed his appeal.

           The appellant, accused No. I in Sessions Trial No.228 of 1985 on the
    file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, then part of the Madhya Pradesh
E   State, is the husband of one Shakuntla Bai @ Amrika Bai having been married
    to each other during the year 1976-1977. The second accused Surja Bai is the
    wife of Rajaram, the elder brother of the appellant. Rajaram, the elder brother,
    was said to be residing away from the Village being a Government Servant,
    leaving his wife to live in the joint family house in the village where the
    appellant was said to have also been living with his wife. The case of the
F   prosecution was that the appellant used to harass his wife from the beginning
    on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry and often used to
    pester her to bring more gold and money from her father. Whenever she used
    to remind the appellant that the status and economic position of her father did
    not permit further dowry being given as demanded, the deceased used to be
G   not only taunted and harassed but also threatened and beaten and at times
    even driven out of the house. In the month of December, 1984, the appellant
    appears to have called Suryamani, the elder brother of the deceased,. and
    demanded payment of Rs. 3,000 saying that if he really was interested in the
    welfare of his sister he must immediately pay the amount. The father of the
    deceased appears to have arranged for the money from his brother-in-law and
H   through his son paid the sum to the appellant. About 3 or 4 months prior to
,             MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) [D. RAJU, J.]     857
    the occurrence resulting in· the death of Shakuntla Bai, tl1e servant of the A
    appellant appears to have, at the behest of the appellant, called the father of
    the deceased and when he went to the house of the appellant he told him that
    he did not want to keep his daughter any longer in the house and he may take
    her with him. On that, with great difficulties he was able to persuade the
    appellant and leave the deceased with her husband, in the house. Immediately
    thereafter during March-April when once the father of the deceased was in B
    the house of his brother-in-law, the deceased was said to have come
    accompanied by a servant from the village where she was living, with broken
    utensils in a bag to her Uncle's house at Mahasamund, telling her father that
    her husband has broken all utensils saying that the brass utensils given by her
    father, instead of giving modern age steel utensils, have become old and, C
    therefore, get them substituted with new stainless steel utensils. Her father,
    finding the pitiable condition of his daughter, has purchased new utensils
    from the shop at Mahasamund and sent her back with new utensils.

           While matters stood thus, the ill-treatment and harassment by the
    appellant of his wife continued unabated also for further reason that she D
    found out on many occasions the appellant having illicit relations with his
    Bhabhi Surja Bai. Jn the background of such events and strained relations, it
    appears that on 18.6.1985 in the marital home at the Village Deori the deceased
    consumed poison pesticide and died on the same day as a result thereof, in
    the house of the appellant. The vomiting made before her death, which the E
    Police seems to have seized under a seizure memo Ex.P-7 and got tested also
    proved to contain pesticide. On coming to know of the occurrence at about
    10.00 p.m. in the night, the father of the deceased filed the next day a written
    complaint to the Police on the. basis of which an FIR was said to have been
    recorded and crime registered and investigation commenced. After completing
    the formalities of the investigation including the spot inspection, the seizure F
    of the vomiting material and sending the same for laboratory test and arranging
    for the post mortem examination of the body, the prosecution laid charge
    against the appellant under Section 498-A and both the appellant and Surja
    Bai under Section 306 read with Section 34, !PC. PWs. I to 9 seem to have
    been examined besides marking documents and material objects for the G
    prosecution and for the defence also witness was examined and document
    marked. The defence side also seems to have attempted to show that there
    was enough money available and no need for demanding money at any time
    from the complainant side existed. On consideration of the materials placed
    on record and the stand taken for defence, the learned Trial Judge came to
    the conclusion that the prosecution was able to substantiate the charges against H
    858                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2004) I S.C.R.

A the appellant under Section 498A as well as under Section 306 read with
    Section 34 and sentenced him to 3 years R.l. for the offence under Section
    498A, IPC, and 7 years R.I. under Section 306, IPC, both of which to run
    concurrently. So far as the other accused Surja Bai, A-2, is concerned, in the
    absence of concrete material and the very statement of PW-I the father of the
    deceased that she did not harass his deceased daughter, the learned Trial
B   Judge acquitted her of the charge against her.

         Aggrieved, the appellant alone pursued the matter, as noticed earlier,
  unsuccessfully before the High Court and thereafter filed this appeal. The
  learned counsel for the appeilant strenuously contended that the materials on
C record are not sufficient to prove the necessary ingredients to constitute the
  offences for which the appellant has been charged with, and held proved.
  According to the plea on behalf of the appellant, there was no proper or
  concrete proof of the further demand for dowry as alleged or as to the payment
  of such amounts and that the deceased Shakuntla Bai consumed poisonous
  substance to commit suicide on her own, due to apparently the stomach pain
D with which she was said to be suffering for the past one year prior to her
  death. It was pointed out that once in the year 1982 also the deceased consumed
  rat killing pesticide though she was saved at that time and consequently the
  conviction of the appellant, though concurrent, was not based on acceptable
  evidence and consequently is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also
E made a grievance about non-compliance with the provisions of Section 235(2),
  Cr.P.C. and relied upon the decision reported in Santa Singh v. State of
  Punjab, [1976] 4 SCC 190. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
  respondent-State contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts
  below are well merited and borne out on the materials placed on record and
  they do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever to call for interference in
F an appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The learned
  counsel on either side invited our attention extensively to the relevant portions
  of the judgment of the courts below to substantiate their respective standpoint.

        We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
  appearing on either side. The grievance sought to be made on the alleged
G non-compliance with the provisions in Section 235(2), Cr.P.C., does not merit
  countenance and the decision relied upon, as noticed above, does not help to
  support the claim as well. The decision in Santa Singh 's case (supra) was one
  where the sentence imposed was of death the maximum and in such
  circumstances this Court thought fit to set aside the sentence alone and remand
H the same to give a hearing on the same. It was indicated even therein in the
          MOTi LAL v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHA TTISGARH) [D. RA.JU, J.]   859
concurring judgment ofS. Murtaza Faz! Ali, J. that no grievance can be made A
where minimum sentence under the provisions of law has been awarded. As
a matter of fact, the same Bench while dealing with the case reported in
Narpa/ Singh and Ors. v. State ofHaryana, AIR (1977) SC 1066 remitted for
consideration afresh of the Sessions Judge the question of sentence after
giving opportunity only in respect of the accused on whom death sentence
was imposed and straight away disposed of and dismissed the appeal in B
respect of those accused who were sentenced to life imprisonment only on
being convicted of an offence of murder under Section 302, !PC. In Ramdeo
Chauhan alias Rajnath v. State ofAssam, (200115 SCC 714 a Bench of three
learned Judges had an occasion to consider the question in the light of the
amendment made by introducing third proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section C
309, Cr.P.C., and observed that the plea made as to the sentence and conviction
being recorded on the same day resulting in contravention of Section 235(2),
Cr.P.C., cannot be accepted and that though the normal rule be that after
pronouncing the verdict of guilt the hearing should be made on the same day
and sentence also should be pronounced that day itself, in cases where the
Judge feels or if the accused demands more time for hearing on the question D
of sentence especially when the Judge proposes to impose death penalty, the
third proviso to Section 309, Cr.P.C., would be no bar for affording such
time and if for any reason the Court was inclined to adjourn the case after
pronouncing the verdict of guilt in grave offences, the person convicted
should be committed to jail till the verdict on the sentence is pronounced. E

       So far as the case on hand is concerned, the order of the Trial Court
would disclose that the verdict of guilt was pronounced on 4.10.1989 and on
that day itself after hearing perhaps the learned counsel for the accused the
order sentencing the appellant was separately passed. So far as the conviction
under Section 498A, !PC, is concerned, as against the permissible sentence F
of life imprisonment or imprisonment which may extend to ten years and
fine, a sentence of three years R.I. and for conviction under Section 30c, !PC,
as against the permissible sentence of imprisonment up to ten years and fine,
seven years R.l. have been found imposed. It is not the case of the appellant
that he sought for an adjournment or grant of further time for making
submission on the sentence but the same was refused. Even no grievance in G
that behalf by the appellant appears or shown to have been made before the
High Court either in the memorandum of appeal or at the time of argument.
In the light of the above, the appellant cannot make any legitimate grievance
at any rate on the alleged non-compliance with Section 235(2), Cr.P.C. The
contention in this regard shall stand rejected.                                 H
    860                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2004) I S.C.R.

A       So far as the challenge sought to be made on merits as to the conviction
  of the appellant is concerned, we find that both the courts below have
  undertaken an independent consideration of the materials on record in the
  light of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and yet found the
  prosecution case fully substantiated on the basis of concrete and relevant
  materials brought on record. The defence plea as to want of sufficient proof
B for demand of additional dowry and harassment on that account and as to the
  appellant being possession of sufficient resources in Bank have been considered
  elaborately and found rejected for valid and relevant reasons supported by
  concrete materials produced. The ample materials on record overwhelmingly
  support the factual findings concurrently recorded by both the courts below
C and they are not shown to be vitiated for any infirmity whatsoever to call for
  or justify the interference of this Court in the appeal filed under Article 136
  of the Constitution of India. The evidence on record, to which our attention
  has also been drawn by the learned counsel, sufficiently makes out the case
  of persistent and unabated harassment and acts of cruelty meted out to the
  deceased by not only pestering her and her relatives to give more and more
D by way of additional dowry from time to time, but that she has been ill-
  treated physically and consequently the challenge made to the concurrent
  findings is not only bereft of substance but does not merit countenance in our
  hands. The quantum of sentence, keeping in view the serious nature of the
  offences, also cannot be said to be on the higher side, for showing any further
E leniency.
          The appeal, consequently, fails and shall stand dismissed.

    S.K.S.                                                    Appeal dismissed.