Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jagdish Kori Judgement Given By: ... on 25 September, 2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.1745/2012
25.9.2013
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the
applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under
Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short)
against the acquittal of the respondents namely Jagdish Kori,
Achhelal Kori, Bhaiyalal Kori and Ramdas Kori of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304 B and in alternative 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). The corresponding judgment was passed by Sessions Judge, Panna, in Sessions Trial No.21/2011 on 18.7.2011. Marriage of Indibai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Jagdish Kori six years prior to the date of incident.
As per the prosecution story, respondent nos. 1 to 4 were involved in subjecting Indibai to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 29/7/2010, under suspicious circumstances, dead body of Indibai was found hanging in her matrimonial home only.
Learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Dy. Advocate General, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
After considering the evidence of Neelkanth (PW1) and Sukariya (PW2), parents of the deceased and Sudarshan (PW3), trial Court held that it was not proved that the death had occurred within seven years of the marriage. Trial Court found their evidence to be fraught with material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations and also not in conformity with each other with regard to demand of dowry. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Moreover, at the time of post mortem, parents of the deceased had not informed the police personnel regarding cruelty and demand for dowry and such allegations were leveled only after 15 days of her death. Trial Court also found it established from the evidence on record that all the respondents stayed separately and, therefore, subjecting the deceased to cruelty by all of them for demand of dowry, appeared doubtful. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)