SURESH PANDEY S/O. SATYANARAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.11.1996, passed by Sessions Court, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.138/96, whereby he is convicted under Section 306 of the Penal Code 1860 ( short "IPC") and sentenced to 5 years R.I. together with fine of Rs.2000/- with a default stipulation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant � Suresh Pandey and the deceased � Smt. Seema Sharma, were married on 9.5.1993. From the said wedlock, one daughter was born. The appellant was working as guard in the railways. On 4.4.1996, deceased � Smt. Seema Sharma consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. She was admitted in Distt. hospital, Ratlam for treatment at 7.10 PM in the evening. She was examined by Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW4). During medical examination she deposed that at 6.45 in the evening, she consumed sulfas tablets. This intimation was given by the Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW4) to the police station vide Exhibit P/6. She was admitted in the hospital and during treatment, she died on the same day, i.e, 4.4.1996. Intimation of death was given to the police on the basis of which murg was registered vide Exhibit P/8. City Superintendent of Police came to hospital and after giving notice to the witness vide Exhibit P/2 inquest was prepared by him vide Exhibit P/3 and she was sent for postmortem. Her autopsy was conducted by Dr. Arun Purohit (PW1) on 5.4.1996. Exhibit P/ 1 is PM report. As per PM report no definite opinion was given by the Dr. Arun Purohit (PW1). Her viscera was sent for medical examination and as per viscera report, she died by consuming sulfas or organe phosphorous compound. During investigation, police statements of Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased were recorded. As per their police statements relation of appellant with her was not good and due to his cruel behaviour, she committed suicide.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Dy. Government Advocate drew my attention to the reasoning assigned by the trial Court, but on due consideration of the statements of Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased very fairly admitted that none of the ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC has been established.