DINESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.04.95 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam (M.P.) passed in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 1992, by which the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 306 of the IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-with default stipulation.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, the marriage of deceased Nirmalabai with the appellant took place on 31.01.91 and she was residing with the appellant at Ratlam where the relatives of the appellant were also residing in the same house and they torture the deceased due to demand of dowry. In the intervening night of 17-18th May 1991, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The intimation was given to the police station on the basis of which marg intimation was registered and the investigation was started. During the investigation, a letter and a pen were found near the dead body of the deceased which were seized by the police. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 147, 306 read with Section 149 of the IPC against the appellant and other co-accused. After conclusion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the present appellant under Section 306 of the IPC as stated in para one of this judgment, while the remaining co-accused were acquitted of all the charges by learned trial Court.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the ground that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and further on the same set of evidence other co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not proved against the appellant. It is further submitted that except the letter (Ex.P.2) there is no other circumstantial evidence against the appellant and it is not established that the letter (Ex.P.2) has written by the deceased herself.