GIRIJA DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-11-2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No. 149/2010. By the impugned judgment, appellants/accused persons Girija Devi and Ramesh Yadav @ Bhunu have been convicted under Sections 498A and 304B/34 IPC and sentenced for the offence under Section 304B/34 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 498A IPC. The case of the prosecution, in brief, are as under:-

(2.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined Janardan Yadav (PW-1 father of the deceased), Dinesh Yadav (PW-2), Smt. Dukhni Devi (PW-3 mother of the deceased), Suresh (PW-4), Bhuneshwar Yadav(PW-5, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2), Shankar Yadav (PW-6), Rajesh Yadav (PW-7), Lallu Yadav (PW-8), Santosh Ram (PW-9), Amerika Yadav (PW-10 grandfather of deceased), Ramjan Ali PW-11), Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate Ramseela (PW-12), Assistant Sub Inspector Maheshwar Singh (PW-13), Kuldeep Yadav (PW-14), Dr. Ajay Kumar Tirkey (PW-15), Patwari Rambharosh Singh (PW-16), A.S.P. D. R. Achala (PW-17) and S.H.O. Amros Kujur (PW-18). The appellants examined Rajesh Kumar Singh (DW-1) as defence witness.

(3.) Shri V.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the appellants. He further argued that there was no demand of dowry by the appellants. From the evidence of Janardan Yadav (PW-1) and Amerika Yadav (PW-10), it is clear that the appellants did not demand dowry after the marriage for six months. The evidence of Amerika Yadav (PW-10), Dukhni Devi (PW-3), Dinesh Yadav (PW-2) and Janardan Yadav (PW-1) are hearsay evidence and are not admissible in evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with the demand of dowry. It was not shown that any harassment or cruelty was subjected to the deceased. The appellants can not be convicted on the basis of suspicion or imagination. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A IPC against the appellants.