RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions. Judge. Sagar by judgment delivered on 15-1-1992 in Sessions Trial No. 333/91 under Section 306. IPC and, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) The accused preferred the appeal from jail and Mr. S.L. Kochar learned counsel appeared, for the accused but on the date of hearing as Mr. Kochar was not available. Mr. S. Saxena was appointed as a counsel for defence. He was given sufficient opportunity to prepare the case. Mr. Saxena for the accused and Mr. Manof Naidu, learned counsel for the State are heard.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 21-8-1991 accused lodged a report on strength of which an inquest was made the information was recorded under Ex. P1. According to the report the accused had stated that a day before that is on 21-8-1991 Jagat Singh brother of the deceased came to the house of the accused to take his sister to her parents house but the accused did not permit the wife to go to her parents house, on which she intimidated the accused that if she was not sent with the brother she may commit suicide. Next day when the deceased did not reach the field with the foods a search was made and later on the dead - body of the deceased namely Radhabai and daughter of the accused namely Haribaiaged about two years were found in the village well. After receiving the information, the police proceeded with the investigation recorded the statements on 23-8-1991, though the same were not filed before the court. The dead - body was sent for postmortem. The doctor opined that death was a result of drowning. On 31-8-1991 further statements were recorded under the directions Of the C.S.P. and later on the challan was filed. The accused abjured his guilt and was therefore put to trial. The trial court was pleased to frame the charges under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 306 and in. the alternative under Section 304 - B, IPC. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 302. IPC and also failed to prove that he could be convicted under Section 304-B, IPC. The trial Judge also held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was marketing a demand of dowry he was treating the deceased with cruelty or he refused permission to his wife to go to her parentsT place a day before her death, in furtherance of any intention to demand dowry it however held that the accused abeled the offence therefore he could be convicted /under Section 306. IPC.