PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-8-2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh (Biaora) convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-; in default further RI of 3 years, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.PC, 1973.

(2.) BEFORE narrating the facts of the case it is relevant to mention here that 5 persons were made accused and they were tried by learned Trial Court for the charges punishable under Section 302, IPC, in the alternative Sections 304-B, 177,498-A and 201, IPC, however, the learned Trial Court did not find any of the charges to be proved against the accused Mishrilal, Surendra Kumar, Manju Mehta and Pradeep Kumar alias Mintu as a result of which they have been acquitted. Learned Trial Court also did not find the charges under Sections 304-B, 177, 498-A and 201, IPC to be proved against the appellant, however he has been found to be an uxoricide and holding him to be the guilty of the charge under Section 302, IPC convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) IT is the further case of the prosecution that on 21-6-91 at Raipur the maternal uncle of the deceased had gone to attend the marriage of his maternal uncle to Raipur, where she was also accompanied by the appellant and in Raipur also she made complaint to her mother that why she has been married at an early age and has been pushed from her parents house. She also told that she would like to undergo her studies further. It is said that on 22-6-91 the deceased insisted her mother to take her back to her parents house at Hinganghat and she do not want to go to her husband's house because she was being ill-treated there. It was also told by her that sometime her mother-in-law also co-operate with the appellant when the dowry demand was being made. However, the mother of the deceased did not think it proper to accompany the deceased with her and she was given understanding that on 14-7-91 she (the mother) had to go to Narsinghgarh in a marriage, but she will come two days earlier to the date of marriage and at that juncture she will interact with the in-laws of the deceased. Thereafter the deceased again came back to her in-laws house at Narsinghgarh.