LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-136

MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On October 30, 2012
MAHENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.4.1997 passed by the 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.51/96, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, three months' simple imprisonment was also directed.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short is that, the marriage of the deceased Neeta took place with the appellant No.1 on 21.6.1995 and thereafter, she went to the house of the appellant at Rahatgarh. Within six months' of her marriage, she expired on 23.12.1995. A merg intimation was sent by Dr. J.P. Nayak (PW-7) to the Police Station, Rahatgarh that she was brought dead before him. In merg inquest, a Panchnama-lash Ex.P/10 was prepared and the dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem. Dr. Arif Khan did the postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.P/17. It was found that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and therefore, her viscera was preserved and sent for forensic analysis. Jangbahadur (PW-8) father of the deceased and Dilip (PW-9) brother of the deceased had made omnibus allegations against the appellants relating to the dowry demand and harassment and therefore, a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. In FSL report Ex.P/16, it was found that in viscera of the deceased B.H.C. (Organochloro pesticide) was found. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Sagar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sagar and ultimately, it was transferred to the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants and other accused persons from the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, but convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.