RITESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2008 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.145/2006 convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and further convicting him under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and thereby sentencing him to suffer 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine further R.I. of six months, the appellant has taken the shelter of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purposes of disposal of this appeal since in very elaboration they have been narrated in paras 3 to 5 of the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court, however, for ready reference it would be condign to mention that marriage between the appellant and Sunita (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) was solemnised on 2.5.2004 and she had died on 26.4.2006 on account of burn injuries in her nuptial home. As per the case of the prosecution, the present appellant and other acquitted co-accused persons were making a demand of Rs.50,000/- and a Tata Sumo car which was not fulfilled by the parents of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased was succumbed to burn injuries. It is stated that co-accused Rakesh who is younger brother of appellant telephonically informed Dilip Asati that accident had occurred in his home in which the deceased has succumbed to burn injuries. Eventually, said Dilip Asati submitted a report in the concerned police station which was reduced in Marg Intimation Report No.19/2007 (Ex.P-7).

(3.) On the basis of the marg intimation report, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. The investigating agency arrived at the spot, prepared the spot map and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The statements of the witnesses including the parents of the deceased were recorded. After collecting the evidence, investigating agency found that the appellant and other acquitted co-accused persons have committed the offence and eventually arrested them.