SARJOO Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant No. 1 Sarjoo and the appellant Dadulal (Since deceased) have directed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.4.1996 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S. T. No. 162/95 convicting and sentencing to each of them under Section 306 of IPC with a direction to undergo for five years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of depositing the fine further three months RI.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the deceased Gendiabai got married with the deceased appellant No.2 Dadoolal who was the son of appellant No. 1 Sarjoo. Subsequent to marriage the appellants did not want to keep the deceased in their family. She was not given the proper meals and clothes in the matrimonial home by the appellants and was also subjected to beating in the regular course of life for bringing the dowry from her parental home. The appellants also used to snatch the sum of wages from her. On some of the aforesaid occasions she was ousted from matrimonial home, on which under compulsion she resided in her parental house. On giving assurance by the appellants not to do the aforesaid act with her she was used to come matrimonial home but whenever she came and resided in the matrimonial home she was always subjected to harassment and cruelty by the appellants, consequently on 8.10.1995 by setting fire on herself she committed suicide. On receiving such information at P. S. Bahari an inquest intimation (Ex.P.4) was registered, in its inquiry the spot map (Ex.P.3) and memorandums of death body were prepared and death body was send to hospital where its autopsy was carried out. In further inquiry on establishing prima-facie ingredients of the offence of Section 306 of IPC against the appellants the crime was registered at the same police station against them, they were arrested. In investigation the interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation they were charge sheeted for the above mentioned offence.

(3.) IN pendency of this appeal the appellant No.2 Dadoolal had passed away, pursuant to It the appeal has become a beted till his extent, so his name was deleted from the array of appeal memo on 13.4.2012.