Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 1996. Case: Birendranath Garewal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. Chhattisgarh High Court
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 1996 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Smt. Meena Shastri, Adv. and For Respondents: Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate |
| Judges | R. S. Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Sections 304B, 498A |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 274 |
| Judgement Date | January 19, 2012 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
Judgment:
-
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 10-6-1996 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 494/1993. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Birendranath Garewal has been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years, respectively. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. By the said judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted other accused persons Kedarnath Garewal and Jitendra Garewal of the charges framed against them.
-
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Deceased Anita was married with the appellant on 4-5-1992. After one year of the marriage, when she came to her maternal house, she told her mother that the appellant used to beat and ill-treat her. He used to come home in drunken state. The appellant intended to start some business and for that purpose he was asking and ill-treating her to bring an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents. He used to say that until she brings the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, he will not keep her with him. On 28-5-1993, the deceased had written an inland letter to her father that the appellant used to illtreat her and she had also written therein to give the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant. It was also written by the deceased therein that the appellant had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and with some other girl. On the next day, i.e., 29-5-1993, the deceased got burnt in unusual circumstances, but the accused persons did not report the incident in police station nor they took her to Nandani Mines Hospital, which is situated at a distance of thirty steps from their house. The accused persons deliberately caused delay in her treatment and she was taken to Durg Hospital, which is situated three kilometers away from their house. The accused persons cleaned-up the place of occurrence and thereby tried to eliminate the evidence of occurrence. After death of the deceased, her father Udayram (PW-6) made a written complaint (Ex. P-2) to Inspector General of Police, Bhilai Range, Bhilai (Durg). On the basis of written complaint (Ex. P-2), Crime No. 67/93 under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and the acquitted accused persons. The deceased was sent to treatment to District Hospital, Durg vide Ex. P-1. Dr. V. R. Meshram (PW-7) admitted the deceased in the hospital and gave a certificate (Ex. P-5) that she was fit to make dying declaration. A Head Constable recorded dying declaration of deceased Anita vide Ex. P-5. During the treatment, the deceased died. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and gave notice (Ex. P-4A) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex. P-4) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to District Hospital, Durg vide Ex. P-6. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. M. C. Mehnot (PW-8), who gave his report vide Ex. P-6, in which, he found 95% ante mortem burn injuries. He opined that the cause of death was shock due to extensive ante mortem burn.
In further investigation, inland letters (Ex. P-3A to Ex. P-3D) and other letters (Ex. P-3(1) to Ex. P-3(12)) were seized. An other letter was seized from acquitted accused Kedarnath Garewal vide Ex. P-7.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused persons Kedarnath Garewal and Jitendra Garewal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, from where, it was received on transfer by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
-
Smt. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution utterly failed to prove a case of dowry death against the appellant. The prosecution also failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant in connection with any demand for dowry. The provisions of Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act are not applicable in this case. The prosecution had not established that prior to the death of the deceased she...
To continue reading
Request your trial