BHASKAR JHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 11.4.1997 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in ST No. 138/1994 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, additional six months' RI.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in short, is that on 8.2.1994 at about 7:30 AM deceased Saroj Patel was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Anjaniya District Mandla as she had sustained burn injuries. Dr. Anand Murti Shrivastava (PW -4) examined deceased Saroj Patel and gave his report Ex.P -3 that she was found 70% burnt. Dr. Anand Murti Shrivastava (PW -4) had also opined that she was not competent to give her statement, and therefore recording of her statement was adjourned. ASI Indralal Sharma (PW -10) in an enquiry recorded the dying declaration Ex.P -15 of deceased Saroj Patel and thereafter he recorded an FIR Ex.P -13. On 10.2.1994 deceased Saroj Patel delivered male child (still birth) of about seven months gestation. However, she had expired on 23.2.1994. Her dead body was referred for the postmortem. Dr. A.K. Shrivastava (PW -16) performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Saroj Patel and gave his report Ex.P -7. He found that she died due to consequences of burn injuries. On enquiry, it was found that the appellant had illicit relations with the deceased and when she had conceived, the appellant refused to marry her and told her to get the child aborted or to commit suicide, and therefore deceased Saroj Patel had committed suicide. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Mandla, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla.

(3.) THE trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted the appellant of offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. However, in beginning of the judgment, it was mentioned that the appellant was tried of offence under Sections 376 and 306 of IPC, but the Additional Sessions Judge at the time of conclusion of the judgment did not acquit or convict the appellant of offence under Section 376 of IPC.