RAM KUMAR @ NANKI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that the first husband of the deceased namely Jivrakhan had expired about 22 years prior to the date of incident and after that she started living in her maternal home. It is also not in dispute that after the accused/appellant expressed his desire of marrying again to one Ved Prakash Mishra (PW-12), he contacted her brother Santosh Kumar (PW-1) in this regard and eventually she was got married to him through the prevailing custom in their community (commonly known as "Choodi Pratha") about a year and a half prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that in a short span of 14-15 months after her marriage with the accused/appellant she was subjected to cruelty by him for demand of Rs.5000 which remained unpaid at the time of marriage on account of financial crunch. The story put-forth by the prosecution also goes to show that before marriage, the accused/appellant had asked for Rs.10,000 from the brother of the deceased and out of which Rs.5000 were given to him at that very time and remaining Rs.5000 were left to be paid after the rainy season was over and it is that amount which was being persistently demanded by the accused/appellant and the failure in payment thereof made him put the deceased to cruelty coupled with beating. It is also alleged that on account of this cruel treatment from the accused/appellant, on 02.10.1998 at 11 PM she poured kerosene on her body and set herself on fire which resulted in 100% burns to her. The information to the effect that his wife suffered burn injuries by setting herself afire in the toilet and was admitted in the Government Hospital Masturi, was given to the police by the accused/appellant himself. The same was entered in the Roznamcha Sanha No.62/1998 on the same day and thereafter the Police Sub Inspector (PW-13) went to the said hospital, got the injured medically examined vide report Ex.P-16 by Dr. MK Rai (PW-16) who opined that she had suffered 100% burns. The doctor (PW-16), looking to the serious condition of the injured, referred her to District Hospital, Bilaspur and her dying declaration (Ex.P-1) was recorded by him. During treatment in the District Hospital Bilaspur the injured however succumbed to the burn injuries on 02.10.1998 at 2:35 PM. Intimation regarding the death of the deceased was sent to the concerned police station vide Ex.P-12 on the basis of which Merg (Ex.P-13) was recorded. After conducting inquest vide Ex.P-15 the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was performed by Dr. Smt. Ila Chandel (PW-9) vide report Ex.P-4. After Merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P-10) came to be recorded and an offence under Section 304-B IPC registered against the accused/appellant. After investigation, challan was laid under the said section but the Court below framed the charge against the accused/appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

(2.) Learned Court below by judgment under challenge in this appeal dated 31.08.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.116/1999 convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 304-B and RI for two years under Section 498-A IPC. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submit that as according to the case of the prosecution itself the incident took place on account of the family dispute, the Court below was not justified in convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Calling in question the marriage of the deceased and the accused/appellant being not as per the Hindu rites and custom, according to the counsel for the appellant, his conviction under the said sections cannot be made sustainable in the eye of law. They further submit that even if the entire material collected by the prosecution is taken into consideration, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and thus the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.