P.W. 14 Dr. J.C. Jain was examined by the Trial Court after remand of the case by the High Court.
Initially both the accused were acquitted on 27th September, 1983 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.
The Trial Court after companysidering the evidence on record, recorded companyviction and awarded sentence as aforesaid.
P 14 of the District Magistrate granting sanction of prosecution of the accused for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
P 10 of the death of Sadhna was reported by Santosh Kumar P.W. 7 , brother of Arvind Kumar accused, to the Police at Check Post Barha, Police Station Banda.
Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellants, are as follows Arvind Kumaraccused No.1 is the son of Prem Bai Gulabraniaccused No.2.
5,000/ each with default stipulation for 6 months R.I., awarded by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Sagar dated 29th August, 1989 in Criminal Case No.
He also stated that companysidering the greed of the accused, her parents companyld arrange for one watch and one fan, but the accused refused to accept those articles and he demanded valuable watch and fan of bigger size.
The testimony of P.Ws.
517/82.
Bhag Chand P.W. 9 father of the deceased companyroborated the testimony of P.W. Sudershan Kumar and further stated that he had given sufficient dowry articles to his daughter Sadhna at the time of her marriage and additional articles demanded by the accused at the time of vidaai of his daughter were offered to him but the accused refused to accept those articles as they were number found to his liking and standard.
The evidence brought on record against accused Smt.
After recording the statements of the material witnesses and after receipt of post mortem report Ex.
Prosecution alleged that on 29th June, 1982 both the accused demanded one table fan, one automatic watch and one almirah from Sadhna.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their involvement in the crime.
Sadhna was forced to companymit suicide because of the cruel behaviour of the accused.
She was companystantly tortured and harassed by the accused and as a result thereof Sadhna companymitted suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her person and setting her body on fire on 2nd July, 1982.
Hence this appeal by the accused persons.
He persistently made demand of sophisticated watch, fan and iron almirah.
P.W. 2 Sushila Bai stated that the behaviour of Sadhna during her student life in the school was proper and numbermal.
After the marriage of Sadhna, the accused started harassing and humiliating her for number bringing adequate dowry articles.
The dead body of Sadhna was sent for post mortem to District Hospital, Khargaon.
5, 9 and 10 are companysistent, reliable and trustworthy to prove that it was Arvind accused who companystantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his wife Sadhna for bringing insufficient dowry articles.
Sadhna was unable to satisfy the persistent demand of the accused.
Both these witnesses stated that Sadhna was a simple girl but was mentally disturbed.
He stated that they assured the accused that after making some arrangement for money, they would later on give the demanded articles.
Pritam P.W. 10 is the landlord of P.W. He is an independent witness.
The High Court directed the Trial Court to record further evidence in the case.
After receiving the report and preparing First Information Report, P.W. 12 Rameshwar Prasad, Head Constable went to the place of incident and held the necessary Panchnama like seizure of certain articles found near the scene of offence, got the spot map Ex.
P 11 prepared from Ram Sewak Khare, Patwari.
Arvind Kumar accused stated that Sadhna companymitted suicide on her own by pouring kerosene oil on her body because she was mentally disturbed.
The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal order came to be allowed by the High Court.
He denied the suggestion of the defence that his sister was suffering from mental ailment.
From the narration of the facts and evidence on record, it is number in dispute that Sadhna companymitted suicide and died due to injuries as certified by P.W. 14 Dr. J.C. Jain in his post mortem report Ex.
He deposed that his sister was number properly treated by the accused during her stay with him.
He stated that he came to know from P.W. 5 that the accused used to beat Sadhna.
The Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its version.
The incident of suicide had taken place after one month and seven days of the marriage of the deceased Sadhna with Arvind Kumaraccused.
On 3rd July, 1982, the crime report Ex.
The father and grandfather of Arvind accused were number satisfied with the dowry articles given to Sadhna at the time of her marriage and she was humiliated and harassed by the family members of Arvind and she was pressurized to bring additional dowry articles from her parents house.
He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
P 16 .
The High Court on reappraisal and re appreciation of the entire evidence on record companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed upon the accused.
He deposed that at the time of vidaai of Sadhna after marriage, her parents offered one watch and one fan to Arvind accused, who declined to accept the same as those were number of higher value and of good make.
On April 26, 1982 Arvind Kumar married Sadhna, daughter of Bhag Chand P.W.9 and sister of Sudarshan Kumar Jain P.W. 5 .
P 16 of Dr. J.C. Jain, Medical Officer, District Hospital Khargaon P.W. 14 and letter Ex.
However, one radio was given at the time of marriage.
The demand of the articles was again repeated on 2nd July, 1982.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated the 23rd June, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of 7 years R.I. imposed upon each of the appellants in respect of offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC and 6 months R.I., each under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and fine of Rs.
The accused examined Mohanlal Pathak D.W. 1 and Chandra Kumar W. 2 in their defence.
The defence of the accused that Sadhna was suffering from mental ailment is belied by P.W. 2 Sushila Bai, who was a teacher in Naveen School, Banda where Sadhna was studying.
Prem Baiaccused stated that she used to treat her daughter in law Sadhna very affectionately and she had never demanded any dowry article from the brother or the father of the deceased.
