Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dharmendra Pouranik Judgement Given ... on 30 August, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.7148/2012.
30.8.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the
applicant-State.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been
preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the
judgment dated 28/02/2012 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Pawai, District Panna, in Sessions Trial No. 136/2009,
whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). Marriage of Uma (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 on 5/5/2007 and other respondents are his family members.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Uma to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry, and, under suspicious circumstances, on 5/5/09, Uma consumed poisonous substance in her matrimonial home only and, ultimately, breathed her last while being treated at Primary Health Centre, Simariya . First Information Report (Ex. P/9) was lodged by Dr. Omhari Sharma at Police Station Simariya on which police investigated the matter and after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet before the trial court.
Learned Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, record of the trial Court was perused.
Evidence of Munnalal Tiwari (PW2), Smt. Leela Tiwari (PW3), parents of the deceased, Gutru (PW4) and Narayan Prasad (PW6), in regard to demand of dowry, was disbelieved being full of material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. As per medical evidence, no injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased, refuting the prosecution version including the evidence of Brijesh Tiwari (PW5) as to cruelty meted out to her. Trial Court also held that there was no evidence to draw presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Avnish Bansal (PW10), Investigating Officer, deposed in his cross-examination that respondents had filed a complainant against the complainant party regarding false implication by them. 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 judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)