BALRAM SANODIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/accused have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.10.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No. 20/95 convicting each of them under Section 304B and 498A of IPC for RI eight years in earlier section while RI two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in later. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant No. 1 Balram Sanodiya got married with the deceased Kumari Bai on 4.5.1992. Subsequent to such marriage she was residing at her matrimonial home where she was subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. In her life time she apprised about such act of the appellants and of other members of their family to her parents. Lastly she was taken from her parental home to matrimonial home by appellant No. 1 Balram on 13.9.1994. Subsequent to it said Kumari Bai sent a letter dated 13.9.1994, which was written at her instance by some Bhagwat Singh, to her father contending that she is facing the torture and harassment of appellants and other family member on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. Such letter was handed over by Bhagwat Singh to the father of Kumari Bai. Thereafter on 15.9.1994 said Kumari Bai has passed away. On receiving such information her father Jagdish gave a report in writing to the Police Station Lakhanwada, District Seoni contending that deceased was taken to her matrimonial home by appellant No. 1 on 13.9.1994 and thereafter on 16.9.1994 he received the information of her death It is also stated that he has a doubt that the family members of his daughter's in-laws family have killed her because of non-fulfillment of their requisite demand of dowry. On such report in writing (Ex.P.2) an inquest report was registered at the same police station. In the course of its inquiry after preparing the Panchnama of dead body in presence of the witnesses the same was sent to hospital where its postmortem was carried out. According to postmortem report (Ex.P.4) no definite opinion regarding cause of death was given by Dr. M.K. Tiwari (P.W.3). However, viscera was preserved and later the same was sent to FSL Sagar for its chemical examination. In the course of inquiry of said inquest the aforesaid letter dated 13.9.1994 written by Bhagwat Singh (P. W.2) at the instance of deceased Kumari Bai was also seized in presence of the witnesses. According to which the deceased informed her father regarding cruelty and harassment carried out with her by the appellants and other family members on account of aforesaid demand of dowry. In the course of inquiry it was found that the deceased died with unnatural death within seven years from the date of her marriage with the appellant No. 1 and soon before death also she was subjected to demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. In such premises on 24.9.1994 a Crime No. 88/94 was registered against the present appellants and deceased appellant No. 2 the father in-law of the deceased Kumar Bai for the offence of Section 498A and 304B of IPC. The witnesses were interrogated and the appellants and co-accused were arrested. On completion of investigation the appellants along with co-accused the other family members of the appellants were charge sheeted for the offence of Section 498A and 304B of IPC.

(2.) After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of charge sheet the charge of Section 498A and 304B of IPC were framed against the appellants and other co-accused. They abjured the guilt on which the trial was held. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same by acquitting the co-accused Jagram and Netram from the alleged charges the present appellants and deceased Khursiram were held guilty for the offence of Section 498A and 304B of IPC and each of them was punished with the above mentioned punishment. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence the appellants have come to this Court with this appeal.

(3.) Shri S. C. Dart, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pushpendra Dubey learned counsel of the appellants after taking me through the record of the trial Court including the evidence led by the prosecution and the exhibited papers of the charge sheet along with the impugned judgment argued that even on taking into consideration the available evidence of prosecution as accepted in its entirety even then the offence of Section 304B as well as Section 498A of IPC is not made out against any of the appellants. In continuation by referring the postmortem report of the deceased Kumari Bai (Ex.P.4) along with the deposition of Dr. M.K. Tiwari (P.W.3) who prepared such report, said that it is apparent from such report and deposition that the cause of death of Kumari Bai whether the same was homicidal, accidental or suicidal could not be ascertained by the doctor. That is why no definite opinion in this regard was given by such Doctor in the postmortem report (Ex.P.4), however viscera was preserved but on its chemical examination as per FSL report (Ex.P.18) no chemical poisonous substance was found either in such viscera or on the clothes of the deceased. So in such premises, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that Kumari Bai was died because of some unnatural death. In the lack of such material ingredient of Section 304B of IPC, the appellants could not have been convicted under such section. He further said that in the lack of such evidence showing the Kumari Bai died with unnatural death the appellants could not be convicted even under Section 306 of IPC. In these background he said that out of three material ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, except the death of the deceased within seven year from the date of her marriage with the appellant No. 1 no other ingredients of such section have been proved by the prosecution with cogent and reliable evidence. The allegation regarding alleged demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry by the appellants from the deceased has also not been proved. In such premises, it could not be said that soon before death the Kumari Bai was subjected to any harassment or cruelty by any of the appellants. With these submission he said that the impugned conviction of the appellants under Section 304B of IPC is not sustainable and in the available factual matrix the same could not be converted in Section 306B of IPC.