STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. NARBADA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/State preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.5.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa, in Criminal Case No. 187/1994 whereby respondent/accused Narbada Prasad had been acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that respondent used to live at the house of Sukkhi along with his wife Kali. The deceased Kali was the first wife of respondent accused and deceased Sukkhi was the mother of Kali. He had kept another lady as his wife due to which he used to beat his first wife deceased Kali and mother-in-law Sukkhi. On 21.3.1993 at about 6 a.m. respondent accused had beaten deceased Kali and Sukkhi and on hearing the noise Madho Prasad and Baijnath reached on the spot. The respondent saw them and went to the field. On being tortured by the respondent, Kali and Sukkhi committed suicide by consuming sulphas. At 10 a.m. respondent Narbada returned home and found that Kali and Sukkhi had died. He went to police station and informed about their death. Police reached the spot and prepared the Panchanama and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The police seized the 'viscera' received from the Hospital. The police also collected the blood stained earth and plane earth from the spot. It was found that on account of torture by the respondent, Kali and Sukkhi committed suicide. Therefore, a crime was registered. The accused-respondent was arrested and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After appreciating the evidence, the Court below acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

(2.) The respondent/accused abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence praying that he had been falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) The prosecution examined eight witnesses and the respondent/accused examined two witnesses in his defence.