JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, this criminal appeal is heard finally instead of hearing the application on suspension.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, appellant No.1 is the son of appellants No.2 and

(3.) , who was married to Mona @ Monika (the deceased) on 21/1/2013 under Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, she was living with appellants, but she was subjected to cruelty for not fulfilling the demand of a gas burner and a cash amount of Rs.10,000.00. The mother of the deceased sent Rs.10,000.00 to appellant No.3 despite that cruelty continued with her. On the date of the incident, Kamal elder brother of the appellant No.1 along with one other took the deceased to the hospital where she was reported to be died by consuming a poisonous substance but later on it was revealed that she died due to strangulation. On arriving at the local hospital in serious condition, Merg No.38/13 (Ex-P/12) was registered and after her death, F.I.R. (Ex-P19) was registered at Crime No.311/2013 under Ss. 304(B), 498-A/34 of the I.P.C. against all appellants. Spot map (Ex-P/11) and Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex-P/2). Vide Ex-P/15, P/16 and P/17, the appellants were arrested. The dead body was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Bharat Bajpai who opined that the death was due to asphyxia resulted in throttling and a report vide Ex-P/27 was submitted. Seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and reports were received vide Ex-P/24 and P/25. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C., thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed under Sec. 304(B), 498-A/34 of the IPC against appellants before the JMFC from where the trial was committed to Sessions Court. Appellants denied the charges and pleaded for trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and marked 28 documents in support of the charges. The appellants did not examine any witnesses and pleaded their false implications. 3. After evaluating the evidence came on record, the appellants were convicted vide judgment dtd. 15/2/2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellants from the offences punishable under Sec. 304(B), 498-A of the IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but convicted under Sec. 302 of the IPC. Hence, the present criminal appeal is before this Court.