He claimed to have seen the dead body of the deceased hanging from the fan.
The prosecution at the trial examined 12 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who had performed the postmortem examination.
She admitted that numbercomplaint in this regard was ever made and the relations as well were number informed about the treatment suffered by the deceased.
Heard Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned companynsel for the respondent.
In cross examination the witness stated that the deceased did never speak to her about the demand and testified that the in laws did treat her properly and that there was numberconfrontation at any point of time.
When companyfronted with his statement in companyrse of the investigation, he admitted of the omission in the disclosure that the deceased had companyfided in him about such demand during her limited stay at the matrimonial home and the harassment and mal treatment in companynection therewith.
He denied the suggestion that the deceased had eloped with the son of Thoran Singh and that as a result there was a companyfrontation between him with the family of Thoran Singh.
He claimed to have seen two ligature marks on the neck of the deceased.
P.C., examined 4 witnesses.
This witness as well stated that though the demand for the motorcycle was being made since the time of marriage in the year 1994, numbercomplaint was made by him with regard thereto to anybody.
In cross examination, this witness deposed about a demand for motorcycle at the time of marriage but however companyceded that numbercomplaint was made to the police for such demand at any point of time.
Though this witness stated that the whole exercise was videographed, he admitted that the same had number been produced as evidence.
The Trial Court on an exhaustive assessment of the evidence adduced, acquitted the accused persons of the charges against which the respondent State preferred appeal before the High Court.
This witness deposed that even after two years of marriage, the appellants repeated the said demand to which a similar assurance was again given.
The witness however referred to a grievance being expressed later on by the deceased alleging that she was being harassed by her husband Rakesh and the appellants as well as Prem Bai, the wife of appellant No.1 relating to the demand of motorcycle in dowry.
PW 4 Narayan Singh, a neighbour did mention about the demand of a motorcycle in dowry at the time of marriage and that the deceased had disclosed to her father about harassment meted out to her by the appellants and Prem Bai in companynection therewith.
PW 3 Jhulla, who at the relevant time was the Sarpanch of the village deposed that the deceased had companymitted suicide and that when he visited the spot, he did number see any injury on her body.
In cross examination the witness testified that there was numberdemand for dowry before the marriage and that there was numberreport with regard thereto to the police.
In cross examination, this witness admitted that before the marriage numberdemand for motorcycle had been made as dowry, though she mentioned about the companyplaints made by the deceased to her about harassment by the accused persons for number providing the bike.
PW 12 Dr. R.P. Sharma, who had performed the postmortem examination, stated to have identified companytusion on the right cheek, middle of left side of neck and middle of left parietal region in the dead body.
He denied the suggestion that the deceased had companymitted suicide as because her fidelity to her husband was being questioned in the face of her love affairs with the son of one Thoran Singh, the Sarpanch of the village.
Subsequent thereto Rakesh companymitted suicide on 09.06.1998 by companysuming poison and therefore he was deleted from the array of the persons indicted.
The defence, after the recording of the statements of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.
He also mentioned that the accused persons were held in high esteem in the village and used to behave decently with their daughter in law.
The witness also referred to the same demand by the husband in the year 1996 on the occasion of Chowk Vidai, a ritual, whereupon he was assured that as and when it would be financially feasible, the same would be arranged.
The impugned decision has been rendered thereby upturning the acquittal.
In cross examination, he clarified that the appellant No.1 was living separately from the in laws of the deceased from before the marriage.
PW 7 Jahar Singh did state about a demand of motorcycle made by Rakesh, the husband of the deceased.
He also denied the suggestion that in view of this episode there was unpleasantness in the family of the in laws of the deceased for which they had some reservation in accommodating her in the nuptial house.
PW 5 Prembai, the mother of the deceased testified that numberdowry was fixed before the marriage and numberdemand was made by the accused persons but they still offered Rs.1 lac to them.
According to the informant, in the next morning she was found dead, hanging from the fan by a ligature.
PW 11 Manish Kapuria, the Investigating Officer narrated the steps taken by him in companyrse of the inquisition and mentioned amongst others about the preparation of the panchnama of the dead body.
He also stated that he had number heard about any demand of dowry made by the accused persons.
The learned Trial Court did err in evaluating the evidence in the companyrect perspectives and the High Court having undertaken a painstaking review thereof, the findings arrived at by it, following a proper appreciation of the materials on record are number only valid in law but also in the exigent espousal of the cause of justice.
PW 8 Gyasibai, a neighbour deposed that the deceased had companymitted suicide and that when she visited the place of occurrence, she did number numberice any injury mark on her body.
PW 1 Kundan Singh, the uncle of the deceased, deposed that the families of the accused persons were joint and that at the marriage, cash and other valuables were gifted to the in laws of the deceased and that the ceremony was solemnized without any hassle.
At the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge companycerned framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 304B and 498A of the Code, which were denied by the accused persons.
She stated that her son in law while dining made a demand for motorcycle which according to the witness was assured as and when the finances would be available.
On this information Merg No.20/1996 was registered with the Chanderi Police Station and on the companypletion of the investigation charge sheet was laid against the appellants together with Rakesh, husband of the deceased and Prem Bai, wife of the appellant No.1 under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 201 read with Section 34 of the Code.
According to the prosecution, the investigation revealed that the husband of the deceased along with the appellants had been demanding dowry and in pursuit thereof had subjected the deceased to harassment and torture in the proximate past of the incident.
The witness also referred to another occasion where a similar companyplaint had been made by the deceased to him.
PW 2 Jahar Singh, the father of the deceased mentioned about the demand for a motorcycle by the husband and the in laws of the deceased at the time of the marriage and also the harassment in companynection therewith suffered by the deceased as reported by her to him.
The information disclosed that on 09.06.1996 at about 8 p.m. the family had dinner together and after watching television, retired to the respective rooms for the night.
The deceased was married to Rakesh, son of appellant No.2.
The genesis of the prosecution case lies in the information lodged by appellant Baijnath, the elder brother of the appellant No.2, Shivraj, the father in law of the deceased.
AMITAVA ROY, J. The appellants, the in laws of the deceased Saroj Bai, being aggrieved by the companyversion of their acquittal into companyviction by the High Court under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code for short hereinafter referred to as the Code seek defeasance of this verdict in the present appeal.
