Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shahzad Khan Judgement Given By: ... on 30 September, 2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.261/2011
30.9.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J
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 respondents
Shahzad Khan, Subrati Khan @ Subbu, Azad Khan, Bulbul Bee and Rahman Khan of the offences punishable under Sections 304B or 306 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The impugned judgment was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.226/2009 on 28/8/2010. Marriage of Rizwana (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Shahzad within seven years of her death and other respondents are his family members.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Rizwana to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, under suspicious circumstances, Rizwana died on 28/7/09 during treatment at Hamidia Hospital having been referred from hospital at Sehore and cause of death was ascertained as cardio-respiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning. Accordingly, morgue intimation (Ex.P/8) was recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Dy. Advocate General submitted 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 the learned Dy. Advocate General, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
After taking into consideration the evidence of Assistant Sub Inspector R.S.Yadav (PW1), Sainik Chaganlal (PW2), Peon Abdul Rashid (PW3), mother of the deceased Zareena Bi (PW4), Mahesh Chandravanshi (PW5), Dr. Jayanti Yadav (PW6), Nisar (PW7), Naib Tahsildar Chandrashekhar (PW8), Amir Khan (PW9), Anokhilal (PW10), Ghisulal (PW11), Jagat Singh Rajput (PW12), Satvir Singh (PW13) and other material available on record, trial Court found that marriage of deceased was solemnized within seven years of the date of incident with respondent no.1 Shahzad Khan. Trial Court also held that no injuries were found on the dead body. Though demand of Motorcycle and Gas Stove by her husband was reflected from the evidence on record, yet, there was nothing on record to suggest curelsome behaviour of her husband with the deceased in regard to the said demand. Evidence of Zareena Bi that her in-laws used to harass her on trifle matters of cooking, could not be considered sufficient so as to incriminate the respondents for the offences alleged.
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, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)