PREMLAL Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 18/2007 convicting the accused/appellants u/s. 304B and 498A IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,000 u/s. 304B and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500 u/s. 498A IPC, plus default stipulations. In the present case deceased is Kusum wife of accused/appellant No. 1 Premlal whereas appellant No. 2 is Shyam Bai - mother-in-law of the deceased. Date of incident is 13.05.2007 whereas the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused/appellant No. 1 on 12.03.2007 i.e. just two months prior to the date of incident. On 13.05.2007 deceased suffered 95% burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 14.05.2007. Merg intimation was recorded at the instance of Dr. Kalpna Temburnikar who then gave the information to the Police through a ward boy namely Nakul Koshle. After giving notice of inquest Ex. P-1, inquest Ex. P-2 was prepared and after Merg enquiry on 22.06.2007 an unexhibited FIR was registered. Post mortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted by Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-10) vide Ex. P-6 and according to him cause of death was cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complications. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police on 16.07.2007 under Section 304B/34 IPC. Subsequently, the Court below also framed the charge under the same section.

(2.) In support of its case, prosecution has examined 10 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 Romnath (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.