- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shivcharan Lal Verma And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The two appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for Section 306 and three years’ imprisonment for Section 498-A. The prosecution case was that during the lifetime of the first wife, Kalindi, Shiv Charan contracted a second marriage with Mohini; after the marriage, both Kalindi and Shiv Charan allegedly tortured Mohini, leading her to commit suicide by burning herself inside Shiv Charan’s house. At the time of the incident, Kalindi and Shiv Charan were in one room while Mohini was in another. The Sessions Judge, relying on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 3, held both charges proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted both accused. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The matter then came before the Supreme Court by special leave.
The appeal was not taken up for a long time because an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court holding Section 306 IPC unconstitutional was under reconsideration; a Constitution Bench later set aside that earlier judgment and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 306 IPC.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a prosecution/conviction under Section 498-A IPC could be attracted where the marriage with Mohini was allegedly null and void because it was performed during the subsistence of Shiv Charan’s marriage with Kalindi.
- Whether the conviction under Section 306 IPC could be sustained in the absence of “positive material” showing that Mohini committed suicide because of a “positive act” by Shiv Charan or Kalindi.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Through counsel (Mr Khanduja), the appellants contended that Section 498-A IPC should not apply because the marriage with Mohini was null and void, having been performed during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Kalindi.
- The appellants questioned the sustainability of the Section 306 conviction on the ground that there was no positive material to show Mohini committed suicide due to any positive act by either appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1984 and batch (Constitution Bench) | The Constitution Bench set aside an earlier Supreme Court judgment and held that Section 306 IPC is constitutionally valid. | The Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits on Section 306 IPC in light of the Constitution Bench ruling upholding its validity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that, following the Constitution Bench decision upholding Section 306 IPC, two questions arose in the appeal: the applicability of Section 498-A given the alleged nullity of the marriage with Mohini, and the sustainability of the Section 306 conviction in the absence of positive material indicating a positive act leading to suicide.
On Section 498-A IPC, the Court accepted that there was “considerable force” in the appellants’ submission because the alleged marriage with Mohini, performed during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Kalindi, was null and void. On this basis, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A.
On Section 306 IPC, the Court relied on the evidence of the three witnesses (PWs 1, 2, and 3) and held that it made the position “absolutely clear” that Mohini committed suicide on account of torture by both Kalindi and Shiv Charan. The Court further stated that both the Sessions Judge and the High Court had appreciated this evidence and that, upon review, it found no error in their appreciation or approach. Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the conviction under Section 306 IPC.
On sentence, while maintaining the conviction under Section 306, the Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment term from seven years to five years having regard to the facts and circumstances.
Holding and Implications
PARTLY ALLOWED / DISPOSED OF: The conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC were set aside; the conviction under Section 306 IPC was affirmed; and the sentence for Section 306 IPC was reduced from seven years’ rigorous imprisonment to five years.
The appellants’ bail bonds were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications beyond disposing of the appellants’ convictions and sentence in this case, and it does not state that any new precedent was set.
Order
1. This appeal is by the two appellants who have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for seven years for conviction under Section 306 and three years for conviction under Section 498-A. The prosecution alleged that during the lifetime of the first wife Kalindi, Shiv Charan married for the second time Mohini, but after marriage both Kalindi and Shiv Charan tortured Mohini as a result of which she ultimately committed suicide by burning herself. The incident occurred inside the house of Shiv Charan while Kalindi and Shiv Charan were in one room and Mohini was in some other room. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove both the charges against both Kalindi and Shiv Charan beyond reasonable doubt and convicted both as already said. On appeal, the High Court reappreciated the evidence and affirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present appeal by way of grant of special leave.
2. This matter had not been taken up for hearing for this length of time as the judgment of this Court holding Section 306 IPC to be unconstitutional was under reconsideration by the Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench finally disposed of the matter in Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1984 and batch and set aside the earlier judgment of this Court and held that Section 306 is constitutionally valid. In view of the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. One, whether the prosecution under Section 498-A can at all be attracted since the marriage with Mohini itself was null and void, the same having been performed during the lifetime of Kalindi. Second, whether the conviction under Section 306 could at all be sustained in the absence of any positive material to hold that Mohini committed suicide because of any positive act on the part of either Shiv Charan or Kalindi. There may be considerable force in the argument of Mr Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant so far as conviction under Section 498-A is concerned, inasmuch as the alleged marriage with Mohini during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Kalindi is null and void. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC. But so far as the conviction under Section 306 is concerned, the evidence of the three witnesses already referred to, makes it absolutely clear that it is on account of torture by both Kalindi and Shiv Charan that Mohini committed suicide inside the house of Shiv Charan in another room. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have appreciated the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses and on going through the evidence of these three witnesses, we do not find any error committed by the courts below either in the matter of appreciation or in their approach relating to the evidence in question. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we reduce the sentence to five years. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. Bail bonds of the appellants would stand cancelled and they must surrender to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
Alert