STATE Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State seeks leave to Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 14.12.2010 in SC No.55/08 whereby the Respondents have been charged for the offence having committed under Section 498A/ 304B/ 34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution allegations were that the first Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Mukesh') married Mamta, the youngest daughter of PW-2 and PW-3 on 10.05.2006. The allegations were that Mukesh left the services where he was previously employed on 18.07.2006 after that he made a demand to his in-laws for ' 50,000/- as he wanted to purchase a Chinese Welding Machine. His in-laws allegedly paid ' 50,000/- after borrowing it from the other son-in-law (also named Mukesh). It was further alleged that on 24.09.2006 Mukesh made yet another demand for ' 50,000/- claiming that the amount paid earlier was inadequate. According to the prosecution his in-laws were not able to meet his entire demand but paid him ' 20,000/-. It was further alleged that often demands were made through Mamta, when she refused she was told that the amount she brought was inadequate. On 27.09.2006 Mamta was found hanging from the ceiling fan; according to the postmortem (which was conducted and the report of which was produced during the trial) the cause of the death was asphyxia on account of ligature pressure as a consequence of hanging. The Respondents were charged for having committed offence. They denied guilt and claimed trial. After considering the materials on record and the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charges.

(3.) The State claims leave to appeal contending that the Trial Court has glossed over the material, particularly the cumulative effect of the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, which clearly establish that the accused had made repeated demands that stood proved by the payment of ' 50,000/- in July, 2006 and subsequent payment of ' 20,000/- just 2 days before the death occurred in this case. It is contended that having regard to the very nature of the demand the Court fell into an error in not inferring that the accused were guilty of the offence, and for which the explanation had to be given by them in terms of Section 113 of Evidence Act read with Section 304B IPC.