STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JOGENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17th December, 2003 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the original accused No.1, Jogendra - husband of the deceased, Geeta Bai[respondent No. 1 herein] and the original accused No.2, Badri Prasad - father-in-law of the deceased[respondent No. 2 herein] has been set aside under Sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, (For short 'IPC') while maintaining the order of conviction imposed on the original accused no. 1 - Jogendra under Section 498-A IPC and reducing the sentence from three years to the period already undergone by him, but setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused No. 2, Badri Prasad even under Section 498-A IPC.

(2.) A quick glance of the relevant facts is necessitated. The deceased was 18 years old when she got married to the respondent No. 1 [A1] in a social marriage organisation function(Samuhik VIvaah Sammelan) conducted on 7th May, 1998. Before her marriage, Geeta Bai along with her mother, Kamla Bai and her brother used to reside with her maternal uncle, Bansi Lal [PW1]. In less than four years of her marriage, Geeta Bai committed suicide at her matrimonial home by pouring kerosene oil and setting herself on fire. She was admitted in a burnt condition in the Community Health Centre, Baroda on 20th April, 2002 and breathed her last on the same day. At that time, she was five months pregnant. On receiving information from the attending doctor, an FIR was lodged on 23rd April, 2002 [Exhibit P-13]. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the case was committed for trial in the Sessions Court.

(3.) After examining the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence, the trial Court acquitted Sushila [A-3] - mother-in-law and Jitender [A-4] - brother-in-law of the deceased, but convicted both the respondents[A-1 and A-2] [husband and father-in-law of the deceased] under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment(For short 'RI') for life for the first offence, RI for a period of seven years with fine for the second offence and RI for three years with fine for the third offence. The conviction and sentence imposed on the respondents was primarily based on the evidence of Bansi Lal [P.W.-1], Shyam Bihari [P.W.-2] and Amrit Lal [P.W.-4], maternal uncles of the deceased who stated that the respondents had been demanding money from the deceased for constructing a house which her family members were unable to give. As a result, she was constantly harassed and subjected to cruelty, finally leading to her committing suicide. Dr. V.K. Garg [P.W.-8], who had conducted the post-mortem examination [Ex. P7] on the dead body of the deceased, had deposed that on examining the uterus, there was a foetus of five months in a dead condition and, in his opinion, the death of Geeta Bai had taken place due to burning.