(1.) This appeal u/S 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short referred to as "Cr.P.C" hereinafter] is filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 2/2/2023 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Badwani, Distt. Badwani in S.T.No. 131/2019 whereby the appellant/accused Kunchha was convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 with default stipulation of additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months.
(2.) The exposition of facts giving rise to present appeal, in brief, is as under: (a) As per the case of prosecution, Door Singh reported to Head Constable Gajraj Singh of P.S. Palsud that the dead body Mamta Bai, wife of his brother Kunchha and pregnant for 09 months, was found in the well at agricultural field of Bhagda in the morning of 03. 10.2019. The P.S. Palsud registered unnatural death intimation. The dead body of Mamta Bai was recovered from the well located in the agricultural field of Bhagda at Village Bhulgaon. The dead body was forwarded for post-mortem examination. The Medical officer opined that Mamta Bai had died due to cardio-respiratory arrest by drowning within 72 hours of the examination. Her uterus was expuled out with stillborn male child. During the inquest, it was revealed that Mamta Bai was married to Kunchha Barela approximately one year before her death. Kunchha used to harass Mamta Bai and threaten to leave her. On 1/10/2019, Kunchha Barela brought his first wife Santri Bai to his home. Mamta Bai was distressed and dismayed due to conduct of her husband Kunchha. Therefore, she had committed suicide by jumping into the well on 1/10/2019. On such allegations, the P.S. Palsud registered FIR for offence punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 of IPC against Kunchha Barela. Kunchha was arrested on 19/10/2019. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation.
(3.) The accused Kunchha filed present appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on following grounds: A. The impugned judgment is contrary to law on facts and on record. The ingredients of abetment defined u/S 107 of IPC are not made out. Hence, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC is bad in law. B. The learned trial Court committed error in concluding that the deceased had committed suicide because of the conduct of the appellant. In fact, the deceased had gone to well to fetch water and accidently fell into it. The prosecution has failed to prove the suicide by Mamta Bai. C. The investigation agency did not record the statement of first wife of the appellant. The story of prosecution that the appellant has brought his first wife to harass the deceased, was not proved. D. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The investigation was conducted in very casual manner.