AMBALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. the appellants have challenged their conviction by judgment dated 25.5.96 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.122/94 convicting them for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentencing them to 7 years simple imprisonment each and they were also convicted for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each; in case of default of payment of fine, they were to undergo additional three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellants were being proceeded for offence under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A of the IPC by complainant Gangaram and Gendalal since the daughter of Gangaram and sister of Gendalal, Anita was married to the accused Ramchandra in the year 1990 and being fed up with the ill-treatment meted out by in-laws who used to torture her verbally as well as physically, she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. It was alleged by the complainant that they used taunt her for bringing less dowry and they did not give her food. Even on the date of the incident i.e. 12.10.91 Gendalal received information at 9 PM from one Mataram Gosai that his daughter was dying and Gendalal along with Gangaram, Dhapubai and Kalabati reached Runkheda and found Anita lying dead and it appeared that the deceased has died by consuming some poison substance and hence the FIR was filed. The prosecution machinery was set into motion. The accused were apprehended and duly charged and put to trial. The trial Court on considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated, hence the present appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry have not been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has failed to consider that there were material omissions and contradictions in the star witnesses. The learned Judge of the lower Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. There is discrepancy between the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 and their statements in Court. Moreover the letters Ex.P/10 to P/14 have not been proved to be in handwriting of the husband. Moreover the wife did not want to do agricultural work and wanted that her husband work in the factory and hence false allegations of demand of dowry have been made. No independent witnesses have been examined to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry. Counsel prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside. Moreover Counsel also vehemently urged that all the members of the family have been roped in for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC which is not true and the Apex Court has in several cases come down heavily and deprecated such practice and in the instant case also Counsel prayed that the conviction be set aside. In alternate Counsel has also prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.