VISHNU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.11.1996 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.734/1992, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Prosecution's case, in short, is that, marriage of the deceased Jeera Bai took place with the appellant in the year 1990. She was one amongst 5 daughters of the complainant Kuttan Sahu (P.W.2). On 14.4.1992, she was found dead due to burn injuries. Intimation of her death was given to the police by the appellant on the same very day Criminal Appeal No.2045 of 1996 and merg intimation, Ex.P/8 was recorded. In merg enquiry, nothing has been stated by the parents and relatives of the deceased against the appellant. On 14.4.1992, a Naksha Panchayatnama lash, Ex.P/4 was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem to the Medical College, Jabalpur. Dr. Yadu (P.W.1) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and he found that the deceased died due to burnt injuries and no smell of kerosene was found on the body. After sometime, the parents and relatives of the deceased have made allegation against the appellant relating to dowry demand and a case for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was registered by FIR, Ex.P/11. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offence punishable under sections 306 and 304-B of IPC before JMFC, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to Second Additional Sessions, Judge, Jabalpur.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. He has stated that on the date of incident, the appellant was busy in the procession of Ambedkar Jyanti and therefore, he was not at home when his wife sustained burn injuries, at the time when she was cooking the food. He has categorically denied that he ever demanded any dowry or any article from the deceased or her parents. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellants.