(1.) THIS is an appeal by one Chhogalal, who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewas under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC; for the murder of his wife Sorumbai and cruel treatment meted out to her in connection with demand of dowry. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 302, IPC. The sentence imposed under Section 498-A is rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/-. Both sentences have default stipulation but the substantive sentences, however, have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.) PROSECUTION case against the appellant at the trial was that in the night of 27-7-2001 Sorumbai (since deceased) was admitted in the District Hospital, Dewas with burn injuries. In the hospital, on 6-8-2001 she gave information to the Investigating Officer B.P. Morya (P.W. 11) who recorded the dehati nalishi (Exh. P-11) and based on it a FIR and criminal case was registered against appellant under Section 307/498-A/34, IPC at Police Station Tonk-Khurd, District Dewas. This set the investigation rolling. Same day Executive Magistrate Pushpa Kusham (P.W. 6) visited Hospital and recorded statement of Sorumbai (Exh. P-5). Appellant was arrested on 8-8-2001 and a canister of Kerosene was recovered at his instance vide Exh. P-3 from his house. Sorumbai succumbed to burn injuries on 30-8-2001 in M.Y. Hospital Indore, where she was shifted for better treatment. Because of her death, the case, which was earlier registered against the appellant under Section 498-A read with Section 307, IPC was converted by the police under Section 498- A said with Section 302, IPC. After holding inquest enquiry, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr. G.L. Sodi (P.W. 10) performed the autopsy and found that deceased died of cardio respiratory failure as a result of burns and its complications. The report is Exh. P-10. After completing the investigation, challan was put up and appellant was committed to face trial. He denied the charges and examined five defence witnesses.
(3.) IN this appeal, learned Counsel for appellant challenged the findings of the Trial Court and submitted that the conviction of appellant is unsustainable. According to him, findings are perverse and resulted in injustice. It is submitted that Court below failed to see that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to hold that the appellant committed and act by which death was caused. The appeal therefore, deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for State justified the conviction and the sentence.