SATYAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Session Trial No. 182/1998 dated 01.06.2000.

(2.) The deceased was the wife of the appellant married approximately two years ago. Her dead body was found on the railway track at about 6.00 AM on 11.05.1998. Merg (Ex. P-13) was lodged on 11.05.1998 by the police personnel. Mother of the deceased (PW-1) lodged a written report with the police on 13.05.1998 (Ex. P-4) alleging that her daughter had been subjected to cruelty and was killed for dowry. FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered under Section 306 IPC on the basis of the same. The charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 306 and 304-B IPC. The appellant denied the charges contending that the death of the deceased was an accident when she had gone to answer the call of nature in morning.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was in fact no demand of dowry whatsoever. The alleged incident mentioned in the written report and the deposition of PW-1 with regard to demand of Rs. 15,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle had taken place approximately four months ago. There are no allegations or circumstances contiguous or in close proximity to the death so as to attract Section 304-B IPC or that the deceased committed suicide on account of dowry demands. PW-1 had herself deposed that her daughter was not being harassed for demand of dowry and had never complained with regard to the same. The witness stated she had voluntarily given Rs. 15,000/- for purchase of motorcycle. The spot map Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-10 reveal that the body was found in the middle of railway track. The Trial Court has rightly opined that it suggests that the deceased went to the middle of railway track and committed suicide as otherwise her body would have been found by the side of the railway track.