RATANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1992 and Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1992 filed by Ratanlal and Shantabai and Ravindra separately aggrieved by the Judgment, dated, 9-6-1992, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Ujjain in S.T. No. 106 of 1990. Whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing the offences under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to 10 years R.I. for committing the offence under Section 304B and 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 306, I.P.C. and failing to pay the fine, sentence of one month's S.I. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal in short are that the police Jiwajigang submitted a charge-sheet before the competent Magistrate against the present appellants under Section 304B and 306, IPC. who committed the case to the court of session. In the sessions court charges under Section 304B and 306, I.P.C. were framed against the appellants, who abjured guilt. After the trial, the lower court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) According to the prosecution story, the accused Ravindra was married to the deceased Usha on 8-12-1982 according to Hindu rites. At the time of the marriage, a demand of dowry was made and a dowry of Rs. 30,000/- was settled and the marriage was performed. After the marriage for demanding more dowry, the deceased was being harassed and there upon she on 5/9/1989 consumed poisonous substance due to which she expired. It has also been alleged that on the night of the incident itself the in-laws Ratanlal and Shantabai insulted the deceased and Ravindra due to which she committed suicide. The room was closed. It was opened with the help of the tenant. It was found that Usha was lying unconscious on the bed. She was rushed to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. A report was sent by the compounder to the Police Station, Jiwajigang on telephone, where upon Marg No. 19 of 1989 was registered. During the investigation, the Police found that the accused-appellants are responsible for committing the offence under Sections 304B and 306, I.P.C. Therefore, they registered the offence and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet. The learned trial Court found that the circumstances and specially the letter written by the deceased points to this fact that the appellants committed the offence under Sections 304B and 306, I.P.C. Hence he found that the appellants are guilty of the offences with which they are charged.