1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgement dated 21.06.1999 passed by 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 84/1998. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and 2 years, respectively with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (two counts) and default stipulations.
2. It is not in dispute that deceased Sadhna was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage was solemnised on 04.04.1993. They have two children. The
deceased died on 22.02.1998 at her matrimonial house due to burn injuries.
3. Merg intimation was lodged by Keshav Prasad Singh (PW- 3) (father in law of the deceased) on 22.02.1998. A written complaint was filed by
Rambrahma Singh (PW-8) (father of the deceased). He alleged that the appellant tortured his daughter-Sadhna for demand of dowry. Therefore, he
caused death of the deceased. FIR (Ex. P/19) was registered under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant at
Police Station City Kotwali, Satna. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.
4. After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 in alternate 304-B, 306 and 498-A of IPC. On the basis of the
evidence available on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence
as mentioned above.
5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused on the grounds that the trial Court relied only on the testimony of the parents of the deceased.
Earlier, they never lodged any complaint against the appellant regarding dowry demand or ill-treatment of the deceased. In fact, when the deceased
was ablaze, the appellant tried to save her, due to which the appellant also sustained burn injuries. This facts has been corroborated by Dr. Prayagdatt
Agrawal (PW-5) who examined the injured. The appellant alleged that he has been falsely implicated by the police in this case. No independent
witness has been produced by the prosecution. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the wife of the appellant. She died an unnatural death at her matrimonial house within seven years of her
marriage. The main witnesses are the father and mother of the deceased. With regard to the dowry demand, this Court finds some material
contradictions in their statements.
9. Subhadra Singh (PW-7)-mother of the deceased stated that the appellant used to beat her daughter (since deceased) after consuming liquor. He
harassed her and caused death of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she further alleged that the appellant ablaze her daughter for the demand
of dowry.
10. The allegation made by Subhadra Singh (PW-7) with regard to demand of dowry is a general allegation. She has not specified any particular date
or time of the incident. In cross-examination, she admitted that at the occasion of marriage of her other daughter Pratiksha, appellant had gifted Rs.
7,000/- along with other articles. She further stated that out of Rs. 7,000/- given by the appellant, Rs. 2,000/-were returned to him by her husband. This
fact establish that the appellant himself gave Rs. 7,000/- to them.
11. On the contrary, her husband Rambrahm Singh (PW-8) deposed that the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/- as dowry from them. From 1996-97, the
appellant harassed his daughter. Further, marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the deceased on 04.04.1993 whereas the incident took place
in the year 1998. No specific period has been mentioned with regard to the allegation of dowry demand and cruelty.
12. It seems quite unnatural that after 5-6 years of marriage, the appellant demanded dowry from them. It is pertinent to mention here that before the
incident, no report has been lodged by them against the appellant in police station. No panchayat was held on this account. Except the parents of the
deceased, no independent witness has supported the prosecution story.
13. Appellant has taken the defence that the deceased burned accidentally and while trying to save the her, the appellant also sustained some injuries
on his hand and other body parts. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court towards the statement of Dr.
Prayagdatt Agrawal (PW-5). He deposed that on the date of incident, he examined the appellant and found superficial burns on the upper part of the
right thigh and buttock. He also found burn injuries on the lower side of the right wrist, right palm and on his back. All the injuries were fresh. He
admitted the appellant in the surgical ward of the District Hospital and issued MLC report (Ex. P/10) and discharge ticket (Ex. P/11).
14. Keshav Pratap Singh (PW-3)-father of the appellant has stated the same in favour of the appellant.
15. Janardhan Dwivedi (PW-4) deposed that he saw the body of the deceased just after the incident. He deposed that the body of the deceased was
lying in the courtyard of the appellant. He also saw towel and some utensils there which were used for preparing food.
16. Investigating Officer Ramayan Prasad (PW-9) in paragraph 20 specified that he found a stove and other articles on the spot. His testimony
coupled with the testimony of Janardhan Dwivedi (PW-4) indicate that there is a possibility that the deceased died accidentally. In paragraph 23 of the
judgment, he admitted that he himself mentioned in Ex. P/6 that the appellant tried to save his wife and received burn injuries.
17. All these above facts and circumstances are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant. Because Subhadra Singh (PW-7) -
mother of the deceased categorically admitted that they have never witnessed any cruel behaviour of the appellant towards the deceased. In
paragraph 23 and 24, she stated that they met the deceased one year prior to the incident when she had come to her maternal house.
18. The statement of mother of the deceased indicate that there is no evidence regarding cruelty just before the incident. Further, no clinching
evidence is available on record regarding the allegation of dowry demand and cruelty.
19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the entire record so also the findings recorded by the trial Court in the
impugned judgment, I am inclined to allow this appeal.
20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. He is acquitted from the charges of offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code. He is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged.
21. Copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the Court below for information and necessary compliance.
