RAGHAVENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT alongwith his father accused Bhuvneshwar were put on trial for offence under Section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara by Judgment dated 6-1-1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 136/86 acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sec. 201 hut has found him guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, whereas his father has been acquitted of both the charges. Appellant being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that deceased Maya was the wife of the appellant and they were married about 11 months prior to the date of incident. It is further an admitted position that the deceased was a teacher posted at Parasia whereas appellant was also a teacher posted at village Mungwani and he used to visit his wife at village Parasia. It is further not in dispute that P. W. 2 Narendra Kumar Sharma and P. W. 11 Dipal alias Pappu are brothers of deceased whereas P. W. 8 Sushila Bai and P. W. 10 Rajkumari are sisters of the deceased. It is also an admitted position that appellant alongwith the deceased had gone to his Sasural an on 8-5-1986 they had gone to Vidisha alongwith P. W. 10 Rajkumari and her husband Radhakishan and Depak at Rajkumari's residence. They stayed there for about ten days and thereafter on 19-5-1986 appellant alongwith the deceased and P. W 11 Dipak returned to village Parasia and on the same day he went to village Salkhani, declining the request to stay at village Parasia. There is no controversy that the deceased was at advance stage of pregnancy and she died in the night between 21-22 May, 1986 at her Sasural at village Salkhani. On receipt of the information about the death of Maya, P. W. 1 Mahesh Prasad who is the husband of the sister of the deceased alongwith P. W. 8 Sushila and P. W. 2 Narendra Kumar Sharma went to village Salkhani. Seeing dead body of Maya they perceived her death to be suspicious, and hence gave report (Ex. P/1) to the Chourai Police Station. On receipt thereof, inquest report (Ex. P/3) was prepared in presence of the witnesses and vomitted material alongwith the earth were seized. P. W. 5 Dr. Panchamlal who was called by the appellant on 22-5-1986 declared her dead.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant on 2-6-1985, deceased came to her Sasural at village Salkhani only 3-4 times and although appellant used to go to meet his wife at village Parasia but was not happy with the articles given in the marriage and had kept the same at the parents place of the deceased at Parasia. According to the prosecution, appellant further used to demand Scooter and had suspicion about his wife's fidelity and believed that she had illicit relationship with her brother-in-law Radhakishan husband of P. W. 10 Rajkumari. According to the prosecution, immediately prior to the incident appellant and deceased had gone to Radhakishan's House at Vidisha. According to the prosecutions after returning from Vidisha to Parasia, inspite of the request made, appellant did not stay with his wife there and went alongwith the deceased to his village Salkhani, although deceased was not inclined to go. Prosecution story further is that on 21- 5-1986 the villagers heard the cries of the deceased. According to the prosecution she was done to death by the appellant and in order to conceal the crime, he projected that she died of vomiting.