OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this appeal against their conviction for offence Under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and also against the conviction of the appellant No. 2 Prem Bai and appellant No. 3 Shyama Bai for offence Under Section 307 for which each of them has been convicted, in addition, to sentence of 6 years R. I. The sentence awarded to appellants for offence Under Section 498-A of I. P. C. is R. I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and for that Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, R. I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 Om Prakash is the husband of complainant Meena Bai, P. W. 5, Prema Bai is her mother-in-law while appellant No. 3 Shyama Bai is her sister-in-law. It was alleged by the prosecution that the complainant Meena Bai was married to the appellant No. 1 Om Prakash some 4 years prior to the date of the incident. Initially when she went to the matrimonial home, the conduct of her in-laws was alright, but after a year or two, her husband started demanding Motor-Cycle etc. It was alleged that her mother-in-law was also ill-treating her and making various demands. Earlier attempt was made by her husband to harass her and he had lighted a match to her to burn her. On the day following 'janmastmi'. her husband had struck her with a stick on her eye resulting in damage to her vision. On that day when she had gone to fetch water from the well, appellant No. 2 and 3 had given her a push into the well and she was taken out by the villagers. After 2 days of the incident, she lodged F. I. R. Ex. P-7, setting the investigation into motion. After necessary investigation, the appellants have been prosecuted and convicted for offences aforesaid.

(3.) THE complainant Meena Bai was examined by the prosecution and she has stated in her deposition that the accused Prema Bai and her husband were demanding cash and a 'luna'. She has also deposed to have been assaulted by her husband on the day following 'janmastmi' and having been pushed into the well by appellant Nos. 2 and 3. In addition to the testimony of P. W. 5, Meena Bai, learned Trial Court took into account the evidence of P. W. 2 R. K. Gupta P. W. 4 Sundar Lal, P. W. 9 Bindra Bai and P. W. 11 Prabha Devi, in coming to the conclusion that Meena Bai was subjected to cruel treatment on account of the Dowry demand as deposed to by her.