MANOJ SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.12.2005 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No.322/2001, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Code' for short) whereby they have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine stipulation and R.I. for 2 years with fine stipulation respectively. Marriage of Reeta (since deceased) was solemnized with appellant no.1 Manoj on 21/4/2000 and the remaining appellants are his family members. Reeta died on 31/5/2001.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellants were involved in subjecting Reeta to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry, and, ultimately, on 31/5/2001, under suspicious circumstances, she breathed her last and cause of death was ascertained as asphyxia in the post mortem report (Ex.P/10), wherein as many as 4 injuries were also noticed on her palms and one on chin. As per report (Ex.P/17) dated 29/11/01 of Forensic Science Lab, Organo Phosphorous pesticide was found in the viscera of the deceased. One written report dated 31/5/2001 addressed to Station House Officer, Itarsi was filed by father of the deceased Narbada Prasad. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter Crime No.365/01 (Ex.P/13) for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, was registered at Police Station, Itarsi and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against, as many as, seven accused persons. Out of them, except appellants others were acquitted of the charges.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. According to him, appellant no.3 Vijaya alias Vijaylata, sister-in-law of the deceased, is married and has been staying separately since long and there is no incriminating evidence against her and, therefore, she is entitled to be acquitted. Alternatively, he argued that, at the most, appellant no.2 Shanti Bai, mother-in-law of the deceased, can only be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and appellant no.1 Manoj has already suffered the impugned custodial sentence, while Shantbai has suffered imprisonment for 4 years.