ITWARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-11-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Sessions Trial No. 136/2004. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Itwari, Neminbai, Maniklal and Mankunwar Bai have been convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(3.) Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants argued that Milauram (PW-1), Harish Naik (PW-2) and Gangaram (PW-3) are closed friends of Guharam (PW-5), who is father of the deceased. They are highly interested witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with any demand for dowry. The provision of Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not applicable in this case. The prosecution has not established that prior to the death of the deceased, she had been either subjected to cruelty or harassment or for any demand of dowry. Evidence in this respect is wholly insufficient to convict the appellants. Looking to the letters (Ex. P-7 and P-9) and proceeding of panchayat (Ex. P-11), it appears that the deceased used to leave the matrimonial house many times wilfully. It appears that the incident took place on 14-3-2004 and FIR (Ex. P-16) was lodged on 29-3-2004, i.e., after 15 days of the death of the deceased. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.