STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PURUSHOTTAM @ GUDDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal under Sec. 378 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the State Government being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 10/2/2022 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhnadaun, District Seoni (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 201100 of 2016, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charges under Ss. 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Shri Manasmani Verma, learned Government Advocate submits that the marriage of deceased Milan Yadav was performed with accused Purushottam @ Gudda S/o Krishna Yadav on 27/4/2016. Milan Yadav died on 7/11/2016 due to burn injuries within less than 07 months of her marriage. It is thus, submitted that, there is a presumption under Sec. 304-B IPC that death occurring under unnatural circumstances was a result of demand of dowry and cruelty on the basis of unfulfillment of demand of dowry. Thus, it is submitted that, present is a case, where FIR was promptly recorded on 14/11/2016, and the prosecution witnesses noted that there was a demand of dowry related harassment which resulted in death of deceased Milan, it is a fit case to show indulgence and reverse the finding of acquittal.

(3.) Shri Kamal Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the accused submits that, if statements of prosecution witnesses are minutely examined, then they have not supported the prosecution case. They have in fact admitted that there was no demand of dowry. Milan and Purushottam were living in a very cordial manner as husband and wife. It is submitted that, allegation of the prosecution that there was demand of a Splendor Motorcycle is not substantiated though the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, acquittal does not call for any interference.