STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. RUMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 304-B , 302 , 302 / 34 , 120-B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The accused persons were sent for trial for the above stated offences on account of death of Kanchan Bai (since deceased) on 29-7-2006. She was married with the accused Ruman Lal (henceforth 'the A1') four months prior to the date of death. The basis for the impugned judgment of acquittal is lack of consistency in the prosecution evidence about the demand of any particular item or any specific demand in any of the statement of the witnesses.

(3.) PW-7 Jaikaran is the father of the deceased. He admits that there was no demand of dowry either before or at the time of marriage. Similar is the statement of Kamta Bai (PW-13). In the statements PW-7 Jaikaran as well as PW-13 Kamta Bai, PW-9 Sampatti, PW-19 Guddu Verma & PW-10 Kiran (friend of the deceased) there is no consistency as to demand of any particular item and commission of cruelty for non-fulfillment of that particular item or cash.