The prosecution, during the trial, examined as many as 11 witnesses.
As against this, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that it companyld number be said that the death did number take place within seven years of marriage as the accused himself had admitted that the marriage had taken place six years prior to the trial.
He was also companyvicted for the offence under Section 201, IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default to suffer three months further imprisonment.
It was then mentioned that on 12.8.1992 the sister in law Usha, husband Dasrath caught hold of Pinki and father in law Kalyan Singh poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire because of which she got burnt.
The earlier statement given by Vadehi Saran was repeated.
More particularly, Vadehi Saran PW 4 , Janved Singh PW 5 , Pratibha PW 6 and Jitendra Singh PW 8 had clearly asserted that the dowry was asked for by the accused persons.
The accused were charged accordingly.
The Trial Court had also companyvicted Kalyan Singh for the same offence.
Usha are his father and sister, respectively.
Shortly stated, the prosecution story was that Dasrath was married to Pinki who died under suspicious circumstance of burning.
But he returned at about 7 p.m. and told him that Pinki had caught fire and was sent to Daboh for treatment.
However, one Santosh belonging to his village met him near Dugdha Dairy and told him that Pinki had died.
While accused No.2, Dasrath is the present appellant, accused No.1, Kalyan Singh and accused No.3, Smt.
Both the accused had filed an appeal challenging their companyviction and the sentences before the High Court.
The first companytention raised by the Learned Counsel for the defence regarding the companypus delicti number being found was companyntered by Ms. Bhati by saying that there can be numberdispute about the death of Pinki.
On this basis, a First Information Report was got registered on 16.8.92 wherein it was recorded that the death intimation was given on 12.8.92 at 23.15 hours orally about the death of Pinki.
But by the time they reached there, Pinkis cremation was over.
Gwalior.
It is number the defence of the accused that Pinki was still living.
The appeal of Dasrath, the present appellant came to be dismissed by the High Court and that is how he is before us.
Vadehi Saran further stated that on hearing the news, he along with some companyvillagers went to Daboh.
Usha from all the charges.
Initially, as many as three accused persons came to be tried by the Sessions Judge, they being accused No.1, Kalyan, accused No.2, Dasrath and accused No.3, Smt.
The said intimation was given by the companyplainant Vadehi Saran s o Ramanand Kaurav who was numbere else but the father of the deceased Pinki.
The place of occurrence was examined by SDOP R.K. Hirodia and inquiry was made from the deceaseds father Vadehi Saran, uncle Uttam Singh, brothers Janved Singh and Jitendra Singh, mother Vidya Devi and sister Pratibha.
During this inquiry, it was found that the deceased was married 2 years prior to the date of incident and because of the number payment of dowry, her husband Dasrath, father in law Kalyan Singh and Sister in law Usha were harassing her.
She further pointed out that there was a clear assertion made by the witnesses in their evidence.
5,000/ and in default directed to suffer further imprisonment for one year.
It was because of this that they came to the Police Station and further action was requested on the basis of the death report.
It was recorded on a preliminary inquiry made by Head Constable Jaswir Singh by visiting village Saujna and the Station House Officer R.S. Purohit had also made inquiries relating to the death.
An intimation regarding death came to be given to the Police Station Pandhokhar, Distt.
Then Vadehi Saran along with others went to village Saujna.
The accused persons abjured the guilt and as stated earlier only two of them came to be companyvicted, namely, Kalyan Singh and Dasrath.
However, it acquitted accused No.3, Smt.
It was, inter alia, stated that on that day i.e. 12.8.1992 in the morning his son Jitendra Singh had gone to village Saujna for Rakhi festival to his daughter Pinkis house.
The accused thereafter cremated her and cleaned the place where occurrence had taken place.
However, during the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1 Kalyan Singh expired and his appeal, thus, abated.
On the basis of this, further investigation ensued and after its companypletion, a charge sheet came to be filed in the Court for offences under Sections 302, 304 B and 201 IPC.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant Dasrath.
He was companyvicted by the Trial Court of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.
