Maniklal Jain & Ors vs State Of M.P

MANIKLAL JAIN & ORS. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Four persons in all, Sharad Jain-the husband of

the deceased, his parents Maniklal Jain and Sheela Jain

and his sister Paras Jain were brought to trial for

offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the

IPC for having driven the deceased Jyoti to suicide. The

trial court on a consideration of the evidence

particularly of P.Ws. 4 and 5 the parents of the

deceased, and the evidence of some of the neighbours

including P.W. 10 held that the case against all four

accused had been proved beyond doubt. The trial court,

accordingly, awarded a sentence of 7 years rigorous

imprisonment under Section 304B but no separate

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 2

sentence was awarded under Section 498A. The trial

court also imposed a heavy fine on the accused. The

accused thereupon filed an appeal in the High Court and

the High Court vide the impugned judgment allowed the

appeal of Paras Jain but dismissed the appeal of the

other three. The present appeal is, therefore, confined

only to Maniklal, Sheela Jain and Sharad Jain.

2. At the very outset Mr. Dubey, the learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that Maniklal

Jain and Sharad Jain had been released on the completion

of their sentence and as of now only Sheela Jain who had

undergone about one year and eight months of the

sentence stood confined to custody. He has,

accordingly, pleaded that in the light of the fact that

there was no clear evidence against Sheela Jain, she was

entitled to acquittal. In elaboration, he has pointed

out that even P.W. 4 Narendra Kumar, the father of the

deceased, who had lodged the complaint which had led to

the investigation and the prosecution had named only

Maniklal Jain as the culprit and that there were no

allegations at the initial stage against the other three

accused. He has also pointed out that it appeared that

the incident had been precipitated not on account of

demands for dowry but because the deceased appeared to

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 3

have been sexually harassed by Maniklal Jain, her

father-in-law, and that it had been so stated by P.W. 5

Chanda Jain, the mother of the deceased who candidly

admitted that she had been told by her daughter that she

had been subjected to harassment by her father in law.

3. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, the learned counsel for

the State of Madhya Pradesh has, however, supported the

judgments of the courts below and has pointed out that

serious allegations with regard to demands for dowry had

been made from the parents of the deceased and from her

as well and a young girl, who had been married for only

about nine months, had, in frustration, committed

suicide by consuming poison. She had also submitted

that in addition to the statements of P.Ws. 4 and 5, a

statement of an independent witness P.W. 10, a neighbor

of P.Ws. 4 and 5 was available and he had sworn to the

fact that repeated and aggressive demands for dowry had

been made from the parents of the deceased and as they

had been not able to satisfy those demands, she had been

subjected to harassment and cruelty.

4. As already mentioned above, we are restricting

our decision only to Sheela Jain who alone stands

confined to custody as of today. P.W. 4 in his

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 4

statement admitted that at the initial stage

allegations of demands for dowry had been made only

against Maniklal Jain. He also stated that no demands

for dowry had been made before the marriage or during

the marriage and it was sometime after the marriage that

demands had been made. He also admitted that he had

lodged the complaint before the concerned officer about

five days after the death of his daughter. We have also

examined his statement very carefully and find that in

addition to the above uncertain evidence only general

demands for dowry had been made with respect to the

other accused and (in particular) no serious allegations

have been levelled against the appellant Sheela Jain.

We have also gone through the evidence of P.W. 5, the

mother of the deceased. From her testimony, we find

that she too had made general statements and that the

main allegations were against Maniklal and Sharad. P.W.

5 also admitted that Maniklal Jain had been harrasssing

the deceased sexually and that she had pacified her

daughter and told her to keep quiet to keep the family

honour. She also candidly admitted that no demands for

dowry had been made by Sheela Jain either before, during

or after the wedding. Likewise, we have examined the

statement of P.W. 10, the neighbour. His statement does

not in any way advance the case against Sheela Jain any

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 5

further. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for the

cumulative reasons mentioned above, there is some doubt

with regard to the involvement of Sheela Jain appellant.

5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the

judgments of the courts below and order her acquittal.

It is stated that Sheela Jain is in custody. She be

released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any

other case.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010

6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2010

MANIKLAL JAIN & ORS. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have partly

allowed the appeal as there is some doubt with regard

to the involvement of Sheela Jain, the mother in law of

the deceased. We order her acquittal.

It is stated that appellant Sheela Jain is in

custody. She shall be released forth with if not

wanted in connection with any other case.

The reasoned order shall be separately placed on

record.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 7

NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.