Criminal Appeal No. 325/2001. Case: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Baijnath. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 325/2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Raghvendra Dixit, Public Prosecutor and For Respondents: M.M. Tripathi, Advocate |
| Judges | S. K. Gangele and Sushil Kumar Palo, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 378; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 113(B), 113A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 201, 302, 304(B), 34, 498(A) |
| Judgement Date | September 25, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Sushil Kumar Palo, J.
-
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali district Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 231/1996 under Section 498(A) read with Section 304(B) of IPC, the appellant/State through Police Station Chanderi has filed this appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
-
It is not disputed that deceased Saroj was married to accused Rakesh in the year 1994. Accused Shivraj Singh is the father of the accused Rakesh and accused Gyan Bai is the mother of accused Rakesh. Accused Baijnath is the elder brother of accused Shivraj Singh and accused Prem Bai is the wife of accused Baijnath Singh.
-
It would be pertinent to mention here that the accused Rakesh died during the course of trial.
-
The prosecution story transpired before the learned Trial Court is as under:-
Accused Baijnath, elder brother of the father in law of deceased Saroj, lodged report at Police Station, Chanderi district Guna on 09.06.1996 at about 08:00 AM that they had dinner and watched Television and slept in the night at their residence. In the morning, his daughter-in-law Saroj was found hanged. She was died by hanging on the fan by rope. On this intimation, Merg No. 20/1996 was registered. During investigation, it was found that husband of the deceased accused Rakesh and other accused persons were demanding dowry, harassed and tortured the deceased Saroj. Due to which, she died in her nuptial home. Jahar Singh father of the deceased Saroj and other witnesses such as Narayan Singh, Kundan Singh narrated that the accused persons were demanding dowry and because of this, deceased Saroj was subjected to harassment and cruelty. In the postmortem, cause of death could not be ascertained as putrefaction has began. In the postmortem, ligature mark was found present on the neck. Therefore, police station Chanderi registered a case under Section 304(B), 498(A), 201/34, and 302 of IPC against the accused persons and after investigation filed charge-sheet.
-
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of IPC against all the accused persons. All the accused persons abjured guilt. Accused Rakesh (husband of the deceased) was deleted in the list of accused persons, as he died on 09.06.1998 by consuming poison.
-
Learned Trial Court, after adducing evidence, pronounced the impugned judgment on 30.11.2000 by which all the accused persons are acquitted under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC. The appellant/State has assailed the judgment on several grounds. It is stated that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated about the demand of dowry and they have also narrated that the deceased Saroj, after returning from her in-laws house, has informed her family members that the accused persons are demanding motorcycle, which was not considered by the learned Trial Court. This has happened within seven years of her marriage. The Postmortem report also found injuries on the person of the deceased Saroj, which were ante-mortem in nature, which is clear indicative that she was subjected to cruelty immediately before her death. The death occurred within 20 days of her marriage. Even after 48 hours of her death, the injuries were found on her body. The trachea had not affected and hyiod bone was not broken. The viscera was sent for forensic examination and the report received that there was no poison. This supports the prosecution story. Learned Trial Court overlooked this evidence and committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons.
-
We have examined the...
To continue reading
Request your trial