SAGARMAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against judgment dt. 15.12.1997 passed in S.T. No. 34/96 by learned Sessions Judge Dewas, whereby appellant accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Kalabai wife of appellant accused Sagarmal was missing since 12.9.1995. Report of which has been lodged by Sagarmal in Police Station Hatpiplia on same day. Thereafter dead body of Kalabai was recovered from well situated in the field of accused Sagarmal. After investigating the missing person report No.13/1995 Crime No. 223/1995 has been registered against the appellants on 12.9.1995 on the ground that appellants Sagarmal and his father Punjraj and mother Geetabai used to demand Rs. 10,000/- as dowry and Kalabai has been harassed and beaten by them to fulfill the demand of Rs. 10,000/-. Punjraj also conveyed the demand of Rs. 10,000./- through his son-in-law Mangilal. After investigation, challan has been filed against the appellants and the learned Trial Court after framing charges for the offence punishable under Section 304 (B) IPC and after trial convicted the appellants from the charges framed against them and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

(3.) THERE are only two witnesses produced by the prosecution for establishing the demand of dowry and ill treatment by appellants with Kalabai. The learned Trial Court has believed on the evidence of these two witnesses viz. Surajmal PW-1 who is father of deceased and Mahesh PW-2 who is brother of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted hat both of these witnesses are not reliable witnesses. He has drawn attention towards statement of Surajmal PW-1 who has in his statement stated about demand of dowry by Mangilal who is son-in-law of accused Punjraj. According to him Punjraj after one year of marriage came to his house and stated that his father-in-law Punjraj has demanded Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. Mangilal again came after 8 days with Sagarmal and again demanded hat he has not given reply to what he has said, he has to pay Rs. 10,000/-. At that time, there Ratan Koda was also present. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Surajmal PW-1 has no where stated that any of the appellant has demanded money from him. Even on second time when Mangilal reminded him about payment of Rs. 10,000/- in so called presence of Sagarmal, Sagarmal who is husband of deceased has not uttered a single word for demand of money. Even that time, in presence of Sagarmal, Mangilal has not clearly said hat Punjraj has demanded Rs. 10,000/- as dowry.