UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 28/1/1997 passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No.172/1993, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine amount, an additional simple imprisonment for three months and one month respectively was directed.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.6.1993 Pushpa wife of appellant Umesh Kumar died in unnatural circumstances. A merg intimation was given to the police Raipur Kalchuriyan District Rewa and it was registered as Ex.P-1. Merg intimation was given by the doctor concerned, because Pushpa was admitted in the hospital for treatment till her death. The postmortem was also performed on the body of the deceased Pushpa and a report Ex.P-7 was prepared by Dr. A.K. Pathak (PW-8). He found that the deceased died due to poisoning, and therefore viscera was preserved for its forensic science analysis. The marriage of the deceased Pushpa took place in the year 1985 and she died in the year 1993. In the merg enquiry, the parents and relatives of the deceased had informed that she was being harassed for dowry demand etc., and therefore she committed suicide. Thereafter a crime was registered on 4.7.1993 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC by the FIR Ex.P-9. The investigation was initiated and a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Rewa, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa.

(3.) The appellants-accused did not take any specific plea in defence but they simply stated that they kept the deceased Pushpa with comfort. There was neither any dowry demand nor harassment done with the deceased Pushpa. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellants.