- (1.)FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.4.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, Dist. Balaghat in S.T. No. 125/1995 convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 years and 6 months and fine of Rs.50.00; in default of fine further R.I. for three months, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
(2.)NO exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since the same have been elaborately mentioned in para 2 to 5 of the impugned judgment. However, it would be appropriate to mention here that the appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and has been sentenced to suffer 2 years' and 6 months R.I. The deceased was appellant's own wife. As per the case of the prosecution, the marriage between deceased and appellant took place 30 years before the date of her death which is 25.4.1995.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that most of the witnesses are hostile and one important witness is Harlal (PW-2) who is the son of the appellant and deceased having the age of 18 years when he was examined and who was not declared hostile, has categorically stated that his father (appellant) was keeping his mother properly and she was not being subjected to cruelty. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and therefore, according to me, the prosecution is bound to accept his evidence. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court, they are Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2005 SCC (Cri) 1037 and Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1050 (para 9).

(3.)KU . Meera Bai (PW-1) who is the daughter of the deceased and appellant is a hostile witness. Parsuda Bai (PW-3) who is the sister-in-law (younger brother's wife) of the witness has stated that the appellant and deceased solemnised marriage 30 years prior to the incident. Although she stated that they used to quarrel but in cross-examination she was unable to state that on the date of incident on what point they were quarreling. Apart from this, this witness is residing separately in her own house which is adjacent to the house in which the deceased was residing. Thus, from the statement of this witness only this much is gathered that appellant and deceased used to quarrel with each other. PW-4 Vasudeo is the inhabitant of the village who has only seen that the deceased jumped inside the Well but he is a hostile witness. PW-5 Jhamsingh is formal witness of Panchnama and similarly PW-6 Saligram is the formal witness of the seizure. PW-7 Mahandu is the brother-in-law and is a hostile witness. PW-8 R.K. Sisodia is the Assistant Sub Inspector who received information in regard to the death of the deceased and is a formal witness. PW-9 Mainabai is the mother of the deceased and she has only this much stated that appellant used to quarrel with her daughter. In the cross- examination it has been admitted by her that on account of domestic affairs they used to quarrel. PW-10 Mansharam is the father of the deceased who has also stated that on account of domestic affair the deceased and appellant used to quarrel with each other and similar type of statements are of Ramhari (PW-11) and Bihari (PW-12). PW-13 Dr. P.C. Rawat is the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted the postmortem and opined that the deceased had died on account of drowning. PW-14 Sudhir Shrivastava is the Station House Officer who made the investigation and proved the FIR Ex.P-10. Thus, this is the total evidence of the prosecution.