DILEEP Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall govern the disposal of both the cases (Cr.A.No.103/1999 & Cr.A.No.507/2003). Criminal Appeal No.103/1999 under Section 374 of the Code has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-02-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No.93/1998 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No.507/2003 under Section 378 of the Code has been preferred by the State against the same judgment whereby respondents (remaining accused persons) have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC").

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of accused Dileep and Kalpana had taken place on 26-05-1994 at Bhind. After marriage Kalpana started living at village Kanathar and prior to death she was living at the matrimonial house situated at Mehgaon District Bhind. During life time and prior to this case, on the written report of Kalpana (Ex-P/16) made against her in-laws, the case for offence under Section 498-A of IPC was also registered as Crime No.123/1997 at Police Station Mehgaon District Bhind. The accusation of prosecution in this present case is that the accused persons used to demand dowry and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused persons have started harassing Kalpana mentally and physically. On the information given by mother of deceased, Rampyari (PW-7) in regard to unnatural death of Kalpana due to burn injuries, Marg No.19/1997 was registered on 20-07-1997 and soon thereafter, the then SDO (P), Mehgaon reached at the place of incident. Upon enquiry in the Marg, FIR (Ex-P/12) was lodged at crime No.199/1997 at police station Mehgaon District Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 34 of IPC on 10-08-1997. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the said offences.

(3.) During trial, the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 304-B and 34 of IPC and contended that they had been falsely implicated. It is imperative to note that the accused Patiram (father-in-law of deceased) had died during pendency of trial.