STATE OF M.P. Vs. MUMTAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed this petition under section 378 (3) of CrPC for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents those who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased under section 304-B of IPC by judgment dated 29.6.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 100/ 2005 by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Morena.

(2.) AS per prosecution story, on 8.4.2004 Marg intimation was given to police about the death of deceased Nazma in the hospital. Thereafter matter was enquired. The statement of Smt. Mehbooba, mother of the deceased, Kamruddin, father of the deceased,, Aslam, Ehsan family members of the deceased were recorded. After enquiry it was found that the deceased died under suspicious circumstances within two years of her marriage because of the cruelty practice by the husband Ehsan Khan and Mumtaz, mother-in-law of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid report crime was registered and matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed. It was also found that she died because of consuming some poisonous substance. The defendant of the respondents and husband was that he was earning Rs. 600/- per month and working privately and it was their defence that the deceased used to say that he should live separately from his parents and on account of this she was not happy and they have denied the allegations. After considering the evidence, trial Court convicted husband Ehsan under section 304-B and sentenced him to 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, but considering the evidence acquitted the respondents Mumtaz and Shakoor Khan, those who are mother-in-law and father-in- law of the deceased from the allegations under section 304-B IPC. Trial Court has considered the evidence of Kamruddin (PW 1) father of the deceased, Mehbooba (PW 2) mother of the deceased, Ehsan and Aslam, those who are the family members of the deceased.

(3.) WE have considered the findings recorded by the trial Court. It has repeatedly come in the evidence of all the material witnesses Mehbooba (PW 1) and Kamruddin (PW 2) that the demand was made for opening of the shop through the deceased wife and no direct demand was made by the husband from the parents of the deceased. Such a demand of money for business purposes or help to the husband cannot be termed as part of demand of dowry. Thus, it appears that the trial Court has taken a reasonable view in the matter and the demand was not in relation to dowry and it appears that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges under section 304-B IPC. Shri M.P.S. Bhadoria, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he is also seeking leave against Ehsan Khan s/o Bundu Khan, husband of the deceased, for inadequate sentence awarded to him by the trial Court, but in the petition for leave to appeal neither any such pleading has been pleaded nor he has been arrayed as party, nor any specific prayer is made about the same. Thus, it is clear that the State has not pleaded anything regarding inadequate sentence to Ehsan Khan in the petition. Therefore, we do not find that any case is made out for grant of leave to the State. Accordingly leave is refused and MCrC is dismissed.