STATE OF M P Vs. KESHARIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the judgment passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in S. T. No. 181 of 1986 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of committing an offence under Section 498-A and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondents were charged for committing offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 21-3-1986 at Badnawar, they caused the death of Madhubala wife of Ashok Kumar in furtherance of the common intention to cause her death and before her death they treated her cruelly with the intention of getting dowry. The accused objured the guilt and pleaded not guilty. After the trial the learned lower Court acquitted the respondents. Hence this appeal by the State.

(3.) THE story of the prosecution is that the deceased Madhubala was wedded to Ashok Kumar. The respondents used to treat her cruelly because of the non-payment of sufficient dowry and not giving glasses to the members of the barat. On 21-3-1986 at about 5 a. m. accused Keshrimal and Ranibai poured kerosene on Madhubala and burnt her and then they acted as if they were trying to save her. Because of this they also get burn injuries in their hands. Accused Shantilal and his wife threatened Madhubala and kept her under surveillance in the hospital also. The threat was that if she told the truth to anyone then she will not be allowed to enter their house. Although Madhubala in her dying declaration had said that she was burnt by spilling of oil from the chimney (oil lamp), but in the Ratlam hospital she later on narrated the true story to P. W. 2 Subhadra Bai and brother-in-law Gendalal. When the police investigated the case, it found the respondents responsible for committing the offences under Section 302/34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and submitted a charge sheet before the Court against them. The Sessions Court, after the Trial, acquitted the respondents. Hence the State has filed this appeal.