Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Nandu on 12 August, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
Misc. Criminal Case No.12305/2012
12.8.13
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).
By the impugned judgment dated 8/8/12 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna, in Sessions Trial No.137/09,
respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 304B in alternative 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Code"). Marriage of Radhabai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.3 Khushilal and the other respondents are his family members.
As per the prosecution story, respondents were involved in subjecting Radhabai to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately under suspicious circumstances, she died on 22/8/2007 in her matrimonial home only and before her dead body could be sent for post mortem examination, it was cremated on 23/8/2007. Later, on 2/11/2007, a written report was submitted by her father Biharilal (PW3).
Learned Deputy Advocate General, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General, we have gone through the impugned judgment.
Learned trial Court has found that initially, at the time of cremation of Radhabai, one compromise deed was recorded at the instance of her father Biharilal, to the effect that money and property would be given by Khushilal and his other family members to children of the deceased namely Sourabh and Manish within a month, failing which Biharilal would be free to initiate legal proceedings against the respondents. It was also found by the trial Court that during morgue inquiry, statements were given by Panch witnesses that Radhabai had died due to persistent ailment that had exacerbated as her grandmother-in-law had made her bath in a Pond and, thereafter, with the consent of her parents and in-laws, Radhabai was cremated. It was also found by the trial Court that marriage of Radhabai with respondent no.3 was solemnized on 3/5/2000 i.e. more than seven years prior to the date of incident. So presumption under the evidence Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be drawn. In regard to the compromise, it was found by the trial Court that the same was recorded to ensure maintenance of children of the deceased and the death of Radhabai was in fact natural and her parents were present at her funeral and as the conditions of compromise remained unfulfilled, the First Information Report was lodged by her father. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of acquittal was passed.
After perusal of the entire evidence and material available on record, 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, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)