RAJNEESH JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose off I.A.No.24171/2014, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant who has been convicted under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- on account of commission of suicide by his wife within a period of 7 years on the allegation of cruel treatment by the appellant for demand of dowry.

(2.) As per case of the prosecution, the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was solemnized on 12.5.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Even though the appellant had received a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of the marriage, he started harassing the deceased within 2 to 4 months of her marriage. As and when deceased Kamla used to visit her maternal house, she used to narrate the incident to the members of her family. It was also the allegation that on 17.7.20123, when Kamla came to her maternal home, it was intimated by her to her brother that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1.5 Lakhs and if those demand were not made then threatened her of dire consequences. On 22.7.2012, Kamla was found dead under suspicious circumstances. According to the story of the prosecution, she committed suicide by hanging herself. The appellant has been convicted by the lower Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2014 by holding that the death of Kamla took place within 7 years of her marriage and there were circumstances which clearly go to show that she was being harassed for the demand of dowry.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the written arguments filed by him. Basically, three submissions have been made in the written arguments i.e. first, the deceased committed suicide because she was not able to give birth to a child. However, insofar as this aspect is concerned, the marriage between the parties having taken place on 12.5.2011 and the death of the deceased having taken place on 22.7.2012, this argument per se is not acceptable. The second argument on which the appellant seeks suspension of sentence is that the demand of Rs.1.5 Lakhs on account of loss of business of the appellant cannot be an allegation of demand of dowry for the purpose of harassing the deceased. In this regard, he has also referred to certain lines in the cross-examination of the witnesses and has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 9 SCC 721 wherein it has been held that the demand of money on account of some financial stringency to meet any urgent need or domestic expenses cannot be treated as demand of dowry. However, this argument of the appellant is misconceived. Although the appellant submits that he was financially sound as stated by the appellant in Para 6 of the written arguments. This argument is further contradictory by the appellant himself as he says that he purchased a jewellery of Rs.70,000/- in the name of the deceased i.e. 15.7.2012 and a receipt was filed as Ex.D.3. However, this argument is of no consequence. Purchase of jewellery and obtaining a receipt cannot prove that the appellant was innocent.