STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dtd. 17/9/1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.348 of 1995, whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/Respondents herein of the charges under Sec. 304B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution story briefly stated is that deceased Dhankunwar was married to Ghanshyam, Respondent No.1 herein. Ram Singh and Savitri are the parents of Ghanshyam. It is alleged that husband Ghanshyam and in-laws of the deceased used to make demand of dowry from the deceased. She died an unnatural death on account of the demands of dowry within 7 years of her marriage. Therefore, offences under Sec. 304B read with Sec. 34 IPC were made out against the accused/Respondents. The specific allegation is that on 16/5/1995, the deceased was beaten-up by her in-laws because she could not bring enough dowry and thereafter she died. First Information Report in this regard was lodged on 28/6/1995, i.e., 1 month and 13 days after the occurrence took place and there is no explanation why no FIR was lodged immediately after the occurrence. It is not disputed that the deceased died an unnatural death. Her body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. R. Bhattacharya, PW-19, who conducted the post mortem, has clearly opined that he could not pin-point the cause of death. It appears that because the cause of death could not be ascertained, no case was lodged against the accused/Respondents. However, later on, the mother of the deceased kept on visiting the police station and thereafter the FIR was lodged.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses, but the only witness of any relevance as far as the prosecution is concerned is PW-2, Nirmala, the mother of the deceased. She states that her daughter Dhankunwar was married to Ghanshyam when both of them were children. In her statement, she states that her daughter was married when she was a small child. According to her, even the Gauna (a ceremony when the bride is taken to her matrimonial home), was performed 10 years back. It is, thus, apparent that the marriage was definitely more than 7 years old and this is not a case to draw any presumption against the accused/Respondents. It is also not a case where Sec. 113 or 113B of the Evidence Act would be applicable.