JAI SINGH Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeal, the appellant, father of the deceased Sheela challenges the judgment dated December 14, 2013 whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted for offences under Section 304B/302 IPC and the order on sentence dated December 18, 2013 whereby on conviction of respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar for offence under Sections 498A/306 IPC, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years has been awarded, which according to the appellant is an inadequate sentence. At the outset, it is to be noted that the remedy of an appeal available to the Complainant/victim under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available against any order passed by any Court acquitting the accused or convicting for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. As regards an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence, the remedy is not available to a victim. Thus, this Court is restricting the present appeal qua acquittal of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and qua respondent No. 2 for acquittal under Sections 302 and 304B IPC.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2, who is in custody, has been produced in Court today. Since he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, this Court inquired from him whether he has challenged the said judgment by way of an appeal. Respondent No. 2 states that he has neither filed the appeal nor he intends to file one. Even respondent No. 5 Mange Ram, father of respondent No. 2 states that no appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment. Hence, we proceeded to hear the present appeal,

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the fact of marriage of deceased Sheela with Ashok on February 19, 2007 and her death on June 18, 2011 i.e. within seven years of her marriage is not disputed. Further the fact that she died due to endosulfan poisoning is also proved from the postmortem report. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Trial Court erroneously held that the third ingredient of offence under Section 304B IPC that the deceased was treated with cruelty for demand of dowry by her husband and the relative of her husband soon before death has not been proved by the prosecution.