Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar Judgement Given ... on 4 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.11350/2012
04.09.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant-
State.
Heard on admission.
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 15/06/2012 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court) Seoni, in Sessions Trial No.67/10, whereby
respondent namely Sanju alias Sanjeev Kumar has been acquitted
of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Manju (since deceased) was solemnized with the respondent and in the wedlock, they were blessed with three children.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent persistently subjected Manju to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry to such an extent that she was left with no other option except to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze on 18/2/10. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
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, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
After appreciating the evidence on record, trial Court found that the marriage was solemnized more than 7 years prior to the date of incident. Dying declaration (Ex.P/3-A) of deceased Manju was recorded by R.C.Vaidya (DW1), Executive Magistrate, whereon it was also certified by Dr. A.K.Lakra (PW1) that at the time of declaration, she was in a fit state of mind. It was stated by her in dying declaration (Ex.P/3-A) that on the date of incident, at about 5 a.m., when she was cleaning the house, a chimney fell on her due to which she caught fire. That apart, the trial Court found that C.L.Idpache (PW10), Investigating Officer, had not recorded the statements of neighbours. Moreover, Radhabai (DW3), mother-in- law of the deceased, had also sustained burn injuries to the extent of 30%, in her attempt to save the deceased. Besides this, Saroj Bai (DW2), Sunita (DW4), Basant Kumar (DW5), Sohanlal (DW6) and Dilip Kumar(DW7) deposed that behaviour of her in-laws was very cordial towards the deceased and the incident took place as disclosed in the dying declaration. In view of aforesaid including material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, trial Court disbelieved the evidence of Sanjay Patel (PW6), Pannalal Thekre (PW4), Parvati bai (PW7) respectively brother, father and mother of the deceased.
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)