- (1.) HEARD learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.
(2.) THIS government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2011, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Etawah, in S.T. No. 137 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2004, acquitting the accused respondent u/s. 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case was that the deceased Seema Yadav was married to co -accused Munesh Kumar on 21.4.2003. The accused persons are said to have demanded additional dowry at the time of marriage. This fact has been disclosed by the deceased in her Maika. The accused persons wanted Rs. 2,00,000/ - as additional dowry even though Rs. 1,00,000/ -had already been given on 15.3.2003 in the shape of dowry. When the informant Charan Singh (P.W. 4), brother of the deceased, had gone to the sasural of the deceased i.e. village Nagla Kharga then he found the dead body of Seema Yadav (deceased) lying on the varandah, and the family members were absent. The accused respondents are supposed to have committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has examined Charan Singh, brother of the deceased (P.W. 1) and informant Satya Ram (P.W. 2) as witnesses of fact. The other witnesses are Dr. Pulakraj (P.W. 3) and Mohan Singh (P.W. 4). In this case, the husband of the deceased has not been made an accused. The Trial Judge has acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that the allegation of additional dowry demand of Rs. 2 lacs appears to be a concocted story. The Trial Judge has observed that dowry demand was referred to in the examination -in -chief of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, but in their cross examination, they have admitted that at the time of marriage, both the parties were satisfied and Bidai has taken place in a consensual manner. The marriage had taken place after about a month's negotiation and at that time, no dowry was demanded and thereafter there was no dowry dispute. P.W. 2 Satya Ram has further stated in his cross examination that Smt. Seema after 15 days stay at her sasural, had come back to her Maika where she stayed for about a month. He further stated that her husband Munesh Kumar went to her maika and the vidai was conducted in a peaceful manner. When Seema stayed in her sasural for about 2 -1/2 months, in this period, P.W. 2 had even gone to the sasural of Seema at the time of holi, according to P.W. 2, but she had not made any complaint regarding the additional demand of dowry. He further stated that during the course of her marital life, the deceased had come thrice from her sasural to her Maika and the informant himself had dropped her. P.W. 2 stated that he had himself gone to the sasural of the deceased four times. From these circumstances, the trial Judge has concluded that the demand of additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/ - appears to be doubtful. There is no letter etc. alleging any dowry demand. According to the postmortem report, P.W. 3 Dr. Pulakraj found that the cause of death was hanging. There was no other injury except the ligature mark on the back.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant argued that as per the inquest, some other contusions appear to be present. Much credence cannot be given to this examination by laypersons when there were no such injury marks in the postmortem report He has further argued that the burden u/s. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act lay on the accused persons because evidence has been led that dowry was demanded soon before the death of the deceased by the accused persons for fulfillment of the additional dowry demand. Several reasons have been given by the trial Judge for concluding that the allegation of additional dowry demand was false, hence no presumption could be raised u/s. 113B of Indian Evidence Act against the accused persons.;