KAMAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant seeks to challenge the conviction recorded on 21. 4. 1995 by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chnindwara in Sessions Trial No. 23/94 convicting the appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 250/- and undergo R. I. for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 250/- respectively; in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for six months under each default.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that within about 2 years of 1st/2nd July, 1993, the accused and his parents were harassing and maltreating the deceased Heera @ Meerabai, wife of the present appellant. According to the prosecution, the appellant and the acquitted accused persons were making demand of money for purchasing a motor pump and as the deceased was unable to arrange the money and the relations of the deceased could not meet the demand, the girl was continuously harassed and tortured which ultimately persuaded and abated the girl to commit suicide to find ultimate solace. After completion of the investigation, the prosecution agency filed the challan. Each of the accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial. After hearing the parties the learned Trial Court acquitted Kishna and Smt. Gendabai, parents of the present appellant but, however, convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that from the evidence available on record, a case under Section 306, I. P. C. is not made out. According to him, the statements of the witnesses suffer from the vice of contradictions, omissions amounting to contradictions and illegal developments, therefore, and as the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Further submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the statements of the witnesses it does not appear that what persuaded the present appellant/ accused to make a demand almost after about 6-7 years of the marriage. According to him, present is a concocted and cooked up case, therefore, and as there is no legal evidence available on the record, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.