REWARAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge Balaghat, passed in Sessions Trial No.65/2003. The appellant no.1 Rewaram is the husband of the deceased, appellant no.2 Manikram is the brother-in-law of the deceased and the appellant no.3 Khemulal is the father-in-law of the deceased. Besides the three appellants herein, the mother-in-law of the deceased died during the course of the trial and charges against her abated. All the three appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which they were to suffer rigorous imprisonment for an additional six months.

(2.) As per the facts, which are revealed in the FIR which is Ex.P18, the marriage of the deceased Sunita Bai took place with the appellant no.1 Rewaram on 9.5.2002 and within a period of two months the deceased died due to burn injuries on 7.7.2002. The FIR was registered on 15.8.2002 after the inquest proceedings and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded between 9.12.2002 and 25.12.2002.

(3.) P.W.1 is Madanlal, the brother of the deceased. He has levelled allegations which are omnibus in nature against all the members of the appellant's family. They lack in specific details and contain contradictions and omissions in their cross-examinations. He states in his examination in chief that just before the marriage, the side of the groom, i.e. the appellants herein, had made a demand of Rs.20,000/-. They said that several articles were given by them voluntarily at the time of marriage. After 15 days of the marriage, this witness states that he had gone to get the deceased Sunita home and after she came home she told her mother and brothers that her in-laws, which included her husband, her elder brother-in-law, the appellant no.2, the father-in-law, the appellant no.3 herein, the wife of the elder brother-in-law Durgabai, brother-in-law Shyam Sunder, mother-in-law Pora Bai, asked for Rs.10,000/- and two tolas of gold and that they used to criticize her for small things. He also stated that the appellant no.1 used to beat the deceased. On 7.7.2002 he says he was informed that the deceased died due to burns. In paragraph 6 this witness states that he had gone to the police station to register the report but his report was not taken down. He also says that two months before the marriage all the accused persons had made a demand of Rs.20,000/-. He further states that merely because of the said demand, he did not refuse to get his sister married to the appellant no.1. He, however, volunteers to state that he went ahead with marriage as all arrangements had been made. In paragraph 15 of the cross-examination, this witness states that it is correct to suggest that the demand was actually communicated to them through the deceased when she came to her parental home. The witness also states that it is correct to suggest that despite the demand from the side of the appellants, there was no move from the side of the witness or his parents to call for a sitting of the village elders to sort out the problem. In short, the statement of this witness in court reflects that the allegations are extremely generalized, omnibus and lacking in specificity.