STATE OF M P Vs. BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.4.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 205/1997 acquitting the respondents/ accused of the charge under Sections 498 A, 302, 304B and 306 IPC.

(2.) In the case in hand, name of the deceased is Santoshi Bai wife of respondent/accused Bharat. Deceased was the second wife of respondent/accused Bharat and her marriage with him was solemnized about one year prior to the date of incident i.e. 23.4.1997. As per the case of prosecution, on 23.4.1997 at about 6 a.m. Santoshi Bai suffered burn injuries and was immediately taken to PHC, Masturi where at 8 a.m. Rojnamcha entry was made at the instance of respondent No. 1 but considering her serious condition, she was referred to Government hospital, Bilaspur. On that day itself at about 8.45 a.m. Santoshi Bai was medically examined by Dr. M. K. Rai (PW8) vide Ex.P4 and according to him he noticed 80% burns on her body. Written report Ex. P2 was made by Ramsanehi Sahu (PW4) uncle of the deceased on that day itself alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents/accused. Based on this written report, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P3 was recorded under Section 498A IPC against both the respondents and further based on that FIR Ex. P 14 was recorded under Section 498A IPC. On that day itself at 10.55 p.m. dying declaration of the deceased Ex.PI 1 was recorded by Naib Tehsildar N. K. Tiwari (PWI3)and in the said dying declaration Dr. Arvind Shukla (PW12) made an endorsement that she was in a fit state of mind to give statement. On 28.4.1997, Santoshi Bai succumbed to the burns and information Ex.P13 was given to the police from the hospital based on which Merg intimation was recorded. Postmortem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased by Dr. P.C. Gupta (PW9) and according to him cause of death was coma and shock as a result of burn wounds. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 30.4.1997 under Sections 498A, 302, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) In support of its case the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Statements of the respondents/accused 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. This apart, Kalidin(DWl) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.