GOHIL,J. - (1.)STATE has filed this petition under section 378 (3) of CrPC for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents those who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased under section 304-B of IPC by judgment dated 29.6.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 100/ 2005 by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Morena.
(2.)AS per prosecution story, on 8.4.2004 Marg intimation was given to police about the death of deceased Nazma in the hospital. Thereafter matter was enquired. The statement of Smt. Mehbooba, mother of the deceased, Kamruddin, father of the deceased,, Aslam, Ehsan family members of the deceased were recorded. After enquiry it was found that the deceased died under suspicious circumstances within two years of her marriage because of the cruelty practice by the husband Ehsan Khan and Mumtaz, mother-in-law of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid report crime was registered and matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed. It was also found that she died because of consuming some poisonous substance. The defendant of the respondents and husband was that he was earning Rs. 600/- per month and working privately and it was their defence that the deceased used to say that he should live separately from his parents and on account of this she was not happy and they have denied the allegations. After considering the evidence, trial Court convicted husband Ehsan under section 304-B and sentenced him to 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, but considering the evidence acquitted the respondents Mumtaz and Shakoor Khan, those who are mother-in-law and father-in- law of the deceased from the allegations under section 304-B IPC. Trial Court has considered the evidence of Kamruddin (PW 1) father of the deceased, Mehbooba (PW 2) mother of the deceased, Ehsan and Aslam, those who are the family members of the deceased.
Kamruddin (PW 1) has stated that her daughter had said once that Ehsan is demanding Rs. 75,000/- and says that he will open the shop and this was told to him by his daughter 10-12 days before her death. In the cross examination he has stated that she used to say to her mother and not to him and her mother had informed him that daughter is saying like that. Mumtaz (PW 2) mother of the deceased has also stated that 10-12 days before her death she has demanded Rs. 75,000/- and not prior to that. She has also admitted that her daughter has demanded money and she has told her that her husband wants to do some business and for the business purposes he wants money. Trial Court found that the money was demanded for business by the husband and not by the parents. Mumtaz (PW 2) though has made allegations against the mother- in-law and father-in-law both but in cross examination she has classified that her daughter used to say that her father-in-law was not hearing her. When she was beaten, he was not saying anything. Ehsan Khan (PW 3) has also stated that father-in-law of the deceased was not hearing anything. Ehsan has not stated anything about demand of dowry in his case diary statement Ex. P-7. Investigation Officer Vijay Kumar Khatri (PW 9) has also not given any reasonable explanation about all these omissions. He has admitted that after investigation he has not found Shakoor Khan, father-in-law of the deceased as the accused, but he was subsequently added by the Court in an application filed under section 319 CrPC. Therefore, trial Court found that no clinching evidence for demand of dowry is available against the acquitted respondents and prosecution has failed to prove allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has also considered the decision in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [AIR 2000 SC 2324] in which it has been held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relatives cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be made as accused, against whom allegation may be proved beyond ransomable doubt for the offence relating to dowry death. Shri Pooran Kulshrestha also submitted that it has come in the evidence that both the parties belong to poor family and marriage took place jointly alongwith many other marriages in a social function. At that time, no demand of dowry was made and he has further submitted that recently in a case of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra [2007 (1) MPHT 209 SC] Supreme Court has held that if a demand for money is made on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. He also placed reliance on the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Tilak Bedia v. State of Bihar [2004 CrLJ NOC 80 (Jhar.)] in which the similar question was involved and the High Court held that if the demand is not related with dowry it cannot be termed as a demand of dowry.

(3.)WE have considered the findings recorded by the trial Court. It has repeatedly come in the evidence of all the material witnesses Mehbooba (PW 1) and Kamruddin (PW 2) that the demand was made for opening of the shop through the deceased wife and no direct demand was made by the husband from the parents of the deceased. Such a demand of money for business purposes or help to the husband cannot be termed as part of demand of dowry. Thus, it appears that the trial Court has taken a reasonable view in the matter and the demand was not in relation to dowry and it appears that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges under section 304-B IPC. Shri M.P.S. Bhadoria, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he is also seeking leave against Ehsan Khan s/o Bundu Khan, husband of the deceased, for inadequate sentence awarded to him by the trial Court, but in the petition for leave to appeal neither any such pleading has been pleaded nor he has been arrayed as party, nor any specific prayer is made about the same. Thus, it is clear that the State has not pleaded anything regarding inadequate sentence to Ehsan Khan in the petition. Therefore, we do not find that any case is made out for grant of leave to the State. Accordingly leave is refused and MCrC is dismissed.