JHUTEL RAM KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1998 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 304B and 201 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 3048 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 201 of IPC and pay fine of Rs. 3.000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that deceased Santoshi Bai wife of appellant No.2 Mukesh Kumar died on 18.7.1997 at about 9 a.m. and her body was cremated on the same day in between 3 to 4 p.m. On 18.7.1997 at 5 p.m. Merg intimation Ex. P1 was given by Ram Chandra (PW1), grandfather of the deceased alleging in it that marriage of his granddaughter Santoshi Bai was solemnized with appellant No.2 Mukesh about four years prior thereto and the couple was blessed with a female child. He has alleged that about 15 days prior to the date of incident the deceased had come to her house all alone and upon inquiry, she informed that as she had shown her desire to her in-laws to visit her parental house, she was not permitted for that and instead they picked up a quarrel which made her leave the matrimonial home without informing anyone. He. has further alleged that about eight days thereafter, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased took her back on the pretext of performing some ritual. On the date of incident at about 2.30 p.m. Kunwar Kaushik (PW3) hailing from the village of appellants informed him that deceased Santoshi Bai had expired and till he reached there, her dead body would not be cremated. It has been alleged that when he along with Bhagwat Kaushik (PW8) reached village Koshmanda, the body of the deceased had already been cremated. He asked appellant No.1 Jhutel Ram as to why the cremation was done without waiting for him and when he could not get any satisfactory answer, suspicion grew in his mind and information was given to the police. Based on the above Merg intimation Ex.P1, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P6 was recorded on the same day and FIR Ex. P7 was registered on 20.7.1997 against appellants 1 & 2 for the offence under Sections 304B. 201 and 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, challan was filed on 8.9.1997 against the present appellants for the offence under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of IPC.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.