THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SURENDRA VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the State of M.P. this petition is preferred under Section 378(III) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 08.12.2010 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Chattarpur in S.T. No. 125/2008, whereby the respondent herein has been acquitted from the charge of Section 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) As per the case of prosecution, the deceased Santoshi got married with the respondent on 26th June, 2006 and on dated 17.07.2007 she died unnatural death due to burn injuries. According to the prosecution subsequent to the marriage, in her lifetime she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent. Consequently, by pouring kerosene on her by setting the fire she has ablazed herself. Subsequent to sustain burn injuries she was taken to the hospital where she remained admitted as indoor patient between 6th July, 2007 till her death. During this period her dying declaration was also recorded. Subsequent to death, the inquest intimation was registered, in the course of its inquiry, the deposition of some witnesses including the parents of the deceased namely Dayaram Vishawakarma and Smt. Muliya Vishawakarma were also recorded. In the course of such enquiry so also after receiving the postmortem report, on establishing the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Crime No. 56/2008 was registered at Police Station Gadhimalhara, District Chhatarpur, against the respondent.

(3.) After holding the investigation, the respondent was charge sheeted by the prosecution under the aforesaid offences. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, after assessing the papers of the charge-sheet upon framing the charges of aforesaid Sections 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the respondent, he abjured the guilt on which the trial was held, in which as many as 14 prosecution witnesses were examined while one witness Ratiram (DW-1) was examined on behalf of respondent in his defence.