RAVIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Ravipal Singh being aggrieved by judgment dated 23.12.2003 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.330/2001 vide which the present appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 304B and 498A IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304- B IPC. Beside the present appellant, accused Surendra Pal Singh Bhadoriya father and Pushplata mother of the present appellant were acquitted under the provisions of Sections 304B & 302 of IPC but were convicted under Section 498A IPC with rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months was imposed. During the pendency of the present appeal, it is submitted that both the co-accused namely Surendra Pal Singh Bhadauriya and Pushplata have died, therefore, appeals filed by them have abated. It is further submitted that M.Cr.C.No.1126/2004 seeking leave to appeal filed by the State against acquittal of those two co-accused under Section 302 & 304B has been rejected vide order dated 23.1.2012 and their acquittal under Section 302 & 304B was affirmed by this Court.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that marriage of the deceased Smt. Aruna @ Rani was solemnized with the appellant on 10.3.1999. On 09.04.2001 wife of the appellant Smt. Aruna @ Rani was found dead. Postmortem was conducted on her body on 10.4.2001 and it was found that Aruna died on account of strangulation.

(3.) The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no eye witness in the present case and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of autopsy report (Exhibit P-3) and evidence of P.W.3, namely; Dr. Madhup Kumar. His submission is that under Section 113B of Evidence Act, 1872 presumption can be drawn that the deceased caused dowry death as defined under Section 304B IPC and based on such presumption the appellant could have been convicted only under Section 304B IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.