Ram Prasanna Sharma JUDGMENT
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.
1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 22.3.1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) in Session Trial No. 82/1996 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
2. In the present case, name of the deceased/victim is Uma Bai. She was married with the appellant on 03.3.1996 and died on 08.4.1996. The place of incident is Indira Nagar, Ward No. 4, Dongargarh. It is alleged that the appellant committed cruelty against the deceased in connection with demand of dowry that is why report was lodged and the matter was investigated. The appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) Durga Bai (PW-1), mother of the deceased, did not deposed before the trial Court regarding harassment by the appellant. Shakun Bai (PW-2) deposed before the trial Court that the deceased did not make any complaint before her. Raju Bhallu Goutam (PW-6), brother of the deceased, deposed before the trial Court (para 10 & 11) that his version is not recorded by the investigating officer. Baban Puran Goutam (PW-7) deposed (Para 7) that the deceased did not state before him regarding demand of golden chain by the appellant. Ashok Dalchand Rahukar (PW-8) deposed (para 10) that he did not state before the investigating officer regarding harassment by the appellant. Charan Rammu Karse (PW-9) deposed that the deceased might have died due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, but his version is shaky in nature.
(ii) Raja (PW-10) deposed before the trial Court that at the time of the incident, door of the room was closed from inside and the same was broken by the appellant and he also tried to douse the fire on the deceased. Again the appellant took the deceased to the hospital which shows his innocence.
(iii) Pappu Karse (PW-11) deposed that he also tried to douse the fire on the deceased and there was no quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and relation between them was cordial. Ganga Bai Goutam (PW-13) deposed (para 6-7) that she did not make statement before the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the entire evidence, demand of dowry was not established, therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below.
6. Durga Bai (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased. She did not depose regarding demand by the appellant. She further deposed (para 7) that her daughter did not inform regarding harassment by in-laws. She further deposed that the deceased did not complaint against the appellant (para 12). Mohan Goutam (PW-5) deposed before the trial Court (para 2) that the deceased informed him regarding demand of one golden chain and Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant. But this witness did not depose regarding any account of harassment against the deceased. Raju Goutam (PW-6) deposed before the trial Court regarding information of the deceased regarding demand of golden chain and Rs. 10,000/-, but this witness also did not depose regarding the nature of harassment on the part of the appellant. Baban (PW-7) also deposed regarding information of demand given by the deceased but he is not able to tell regarding any harassment. Ashok (PW-8) deposed that the deceased informed his wife regard........