- (1.)This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 15th December, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1991. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant thereby affirming the sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge, Dindori in Session Case No. 10 of 1990, for an offence punishable Under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code). The facts leading to the conviction of the Appellant are as follows:
"The deceased, Mamta Bai, was married to the Appellant Srikant in the year 1986 in the collective Marriage Conference held at Jabalpur. The case of the prosecution is that at that time, no dowry was settled but afterward the Appellant started demanding dowry of Rs. 15,000/- and used to harass her and subjected her to cruelty on account of not fulfilling the demand. Badri Prasad Gupta, PW-17, the brother of Mamta, who was a Sub-Engineer in Irrigation Department at Baikunthpur, managed to help the Appellant to open a hotel at Baikunthpur. The said hotel was run by him for 2-1/2 months only. However, the Appellant could not run the hotel properly hence it was closed. Thereafter, the Appellant had gone to Bhopal for business purposes but on failure, he returned to Baikunthpur and intended to start a stationery business at Vikrampur for which Badri Prasad Gupta, PW-17, gave Rs. 2,500/- to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant persisted his demand and got the letters written by his wife Mamta (now deceased) and brother Ramakant, but the parents and brothers of the deceased failed to meet the same. For the said reason, the appellant continued to harass his wife. On 25th July, 1989, Mamta, poured kerosene over herself and on her daughter, Ruby aged about 2 years, and set herself ablaze on account of which both of them sustained burn injuries. -

(2.)On the information of Guljari Lal, PW-7, at the outpost of Vikrampur, report was written in Ro-jnamcha Sanha (Ex. P-33C) by Ravishanker (PW-37). Sarada Makhan Singh (PW-35), Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Vikrampur, recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P-26). Mamta and her daughter Ruby were sent to Primary Health Centre, Dindori, where they were admitted. Dr. S.K. Khare (PW-11) intimated the concerned police for recording her dying declaration and, therefore, at the request of the concerned police, Mr. C.L. Yadav (PW-8), Naib Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P-6). Subsequently, on 26th July, 1989, at 3.05 a.m., Mamta died and her daughter Ruby also died. Marg Intimation No. 0/89 was registered at police station, Dindori, from where it was sent to Police Station Shahpur, where the Marg Intimation No. 15/89 Under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was registered. After preparing Panchanama of the dead body of Mamta, postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Khare (PW-11) and Dr. R.M. Mishra (PW-29). The doctors opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of extensive burn. However, Viscera and articles were preserved for further chemical and histopathological examination. The articles were seized and on the basis of inquiry of Marg Intimation, Crime No. 81/89 Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Shahpur. The statement of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation and seized articles were forwarded to F.S.L., Sagar, for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C, Dindori, who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.
(3.)The Appellant was charged Under Sections 498-A and 304B or in alternative Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. He denied the guilt and claimed innocence contending that he has not committed any offence. On behalf of the prosecution altogether 37 witnesses were examined and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court held the Appellant guilty Under Sections 498-A and 304B Indian Penal Code and sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for 3 years Under Section 498-A and for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable Under Section 304B. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.