GAUTAM CHATTERJI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 131/1996 convicting the accused/appellants u/s. 498-A & 304-B IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B only. In the present case the name of the deceased is Sangeeta wife of accused/appellant No. 1 herein namely Gautam Chatterji. Their marriage had taken place on 29.01.1994 and on 19.12.1994 the deceased suffered 80% burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 20.01.1995. Accused/appellant No. 2 was the father-in-law of the deceased whereas accused/appellant No. 3 is mother-in-law of the deceased. During pendency of this appeal accused/appellant No. 2 has expired. On 19.12.1994 the deceased was hospitalized after suffering 75% burn injuries. On 20.12.1994 case under Section 309 IPC was registered against the deceased vide Crime No. 587/94 and after investigation of the said case on 20.01.1995 FIR Ex. P/25 was registered against the accused persons under Section 498-A IPC. Deceased was medically examined vide Ex. P/12 by Dr. Harendra Shah (PW-8) and her dying declaration (unexhibited) was recorded on 20.12.1994. Deceased died on 04.02.1995 and the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC were registered against the accused persons. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against them on 25.03.1995 for the said offences.

(2.) In support of its case, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart one defence witness namely Mahadev (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.

(3.) After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. During the pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant No. 2 has expired and therefore this appeal would be only in respect of accused/appellants No. 1 & 3.