ASHARAM Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by appellants against their conviction for an offence under section 304B IPC read with section 201 IPC. According to prosecution appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal is the son of appellant No. J Asharam. Rajabeti was married to Ram Gopal three years prior to 9.1.1995, date of incident. Deceased Rajabeti was living in the house of accused at Gotenagar, Morena, She was perpetually tortured on demand of dowry. Appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal demanded motor cycle and was frequently beating the deceased. Deceased has informed her parents that she was subjected to demand of dowry. On 9.1.1995 Rajabeti died in the house of accused. In the same night when father and brother of the deceased went to the village they were informed by the neighbours that the body of Rajabeti has been taken to the cremation ground for cremation. When father of deceased Teekaram and brother Ashok Kumar reached the cremation ground they saw that the dead body was burning.

(2.) ON seeing them all the family members left the place leaving behind Teekaram and Ashok. Teekaram lodged complaint at police station Kotwali Morena at about 10 in the night. On the complaint marg report (Ex. P.1) was recorded. After investigation, the Investigation Officer on 10.1.1995 seized the cloth, which was used for covering the dead body and a green colour sari. Burnt bones of deceased Rajabeti were seized vide (Ex. P -10). Trial Court after trial has convicted the appellants. Appellant No. 1 is convicted for an offence under section 201 IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ -. Appellant No. 2 is convicted for an offence under sections 304 -B and 201 IPC.

(3.) COUNSEL for appellants submitted that there is no motive and they have been falsely implicated. Counsel for appellant further submitted that except Teekaram no one else has supported the case of prosecution. In the absence of proof of demand of dowry conviction under section 304B IPC is not warranted and appellants are entitled to be acquitted. Counsel for appellants submitted that PW 3 Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased, has not said that there was demand of dowry and he admitted that the deceased died on account of electric shock from the electric heater.