RADHEY SHYAM Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been prayed hereby that the first information report no.111/2014 registered by P.S. Shahganj, District Sehore, against petitioners Kamlesh, Radhey Shyam and Sewanti Bai under sections 306 and 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.

(2.) The prosecution case before the trial Court was that accused/petitioner Kamlesh had married deceased Namita about 10 years before the date of incident. At the time of marriage, household goods along with a motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash were given by way of dowry to Kamlesh but he did not like the motorcycle given in dowry, so it was exchanged. Three years after the marriage, elder son Prince was born. On that occasion, Kamlesh was given a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/-by way of dowry by brothers of the deceased Namita. But even after that, Kamlesh, on the instigation of his uncle Radheyshyam and aunt Sewanti Bai, used to harass and persecute deceased Namita by beating her up for dowry. Six months before the birth of daughter Veshnavi, Kamlesh again demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in dowry. Om Prakash and Uttam Singh, brothers of Namita, borrowed money from uncle Mahendra Singh and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Kamlesh. After the birth of Vaishnavi, Kamlesh again demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. The demand was fulfilled by brothers of Namita by again borrowing Rs.2,00,000/- from Mahendra Singh. About fifteen days before the date of the incident, Namita had come to her maternal home and told her brothers that Kamlesh was demanding cash. She returned to her matrimonial home four days before the date of the incident. At about 2:00 p.m. on 17.06.2014 Uttam Singh, brother of the deceased, was asked by Kamlesh to go to Kamlesh's house as Namita had consumed poison. They reached the village. As doctor in the village was not available, they took her to Budhni where they were told by doctor that Namita had already expired.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per postmortem report, no marks of injury were found on the body of deceased. In the opinion of Medical Officer conducting post-mortem examination, the deceased had died as a result of sudden cardio-respiratory arrest. The cause of which could not be ascertained and the viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the tests for any chemical poison conducted upon the viscera of the deceased, were found to be negative. On the basis of aforesaid material, which is part of the final report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been argued that the deceased had died a natural death. Since she had died a natural death, no case under section 306 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also advanced arguments that there is no first hand material available on record to support the fact that petitioner Kamlesh used to harass and persecute the deceased or inflict cruelty upon her in connection with his demand for dowry. Whatever has been learnt by the relatives of the deceased in this regard was conveyed to them by the deceased. If the case under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, the cause of death of the deceased would not be in question and; therefore, the information allegedly conveyed by the deceased to her family members, would not be admissible as oral dying declaration. It has further been contended that in any case, there is no material to implicate Radheshyam and Sewanti Bai, uncle and aunt of petitioner Kamlesh in the matter.