MANIKLAL JAIN Vs STATE OF M.P.
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001131-001131 / 2010
Diary number: 2849 / 2010
Advocates: B. K. SATIJA Vs
Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 1
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
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.