SAMSUDDIN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-02-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 184/2006. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Samsuddin and Smt. Khatun Nisha have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:

(2.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined Samual Samad (PW-1), Rajendra Rajak (PW-2), ASI Jagdish Yadav (PW-3), ASI K.C. Das (PW-4), Shyam Lal Sahu (PW-5), Mohammed Lal Khan (PW-6, father of the deceased), Shahida Begum (PW-7, mother of the deceased), Doctor M.C. Mohnot (PW-8), Ramesh Nayar (PW-9), Additional Tahsildar Arvind Dixit (PW-10), Amarjeet Singh (PW-11), Constable Bihari Lal (PW-12), ASI J.L. Shandilya (PW-13), SDO(P) Prafull Kumar Thakur (PW-14) and Niyaj Ahmed Khan (PW-15). The appellants examined Abdul Kalam (DW-1) and Balram Ratrey (DW-2) as defence witnesses.

(3.) Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the appellants. He further submitted that there was no demand for dowry by the appellants. From the evidence of Mohammed Lal Khan (PW-6) and Shahida Begum (PW-7), it is clear that the appellants did not demand dowry after the marriage for 6 months. The evidence of Ramesh Nayar (PW-9), Amarjeet Singh (PW-11) and Niyaj Ahmed Khan (PW-15) are hearsay evidence and are not admissible in evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with demand of dowry. It was not shown that any harassment or cruelty was subjected to the deceased. The appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion or imagination. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients of Section 304B and 498A IPC against the appellants. He placed reliance on Sham Lal etc. Vs. State of Haryana etc. Cr.P.C. : (SC) 1997 149, Sumati Jain and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 3 MPHT 495 and Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2008 5 MPHT(Chh) 67