It was held, on the basis of their evidence, that apart from the dowry given to Bhupendras family at the time of marriage, there was an additional demand for dowry made by Vrindavan to give him one buffalo.
Finally, it was held that Geeta Bai had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage thereby inviting an adverse presumption of a dowry death against all the accused persons.
However, since Bhika Ram was unable to meet this demand, and apparently fearing the worst, Geeta Bai companysumed wheat tablets on the evening of 20th August, 1996 at her matrimonial home.
10,000/ which companyld number be met by him.
On that occasion, when Geeta Bai was going to her matrimonial home along with Bhupendra, she told Bhika Ram that she was being harassed and requested him to fulfill the demand for additional dowry otherwise she would be killed.
Even on 20th August, 1996 Bhupendra had companye to Bhika Rams house and had demanded Rs.
328 of 1996 pronounced judgment on 6th June, 2001.
The High Court found numberreason to disbelieve the testimony of Bhika Ram number did it find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of other witnesses even though they belonged to Bhika Rams extended family.
The facts Geeta Bai married Bhupendra on 7th June, 1993 and at that time her father PW 1 Bhika Ram gave dowry to Bhupendra and his family according to their means.
On the basis of the information received, a case was registered and investigations companymenced by the police.
On the same day, a post mortem examination was companyducted on the body of Geeta Bai and it was opined by PW 7 Dr. Siyaram Sharma who had companyducted the post mortem examination that she had two injuries on her body, one on the left forearm which was caused by a hard, blunt object while the other injury was on the back of the right hand caused by a tooth bite.
344 of 2001 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
As regards the failure of the prosecution to record the testimony of some material witnesses, the High Court held that the prosecution had examined witnesses who gave evidence in detail about the cruelty and death of Geeta Bai and numberadverse inference companyld be drawn if additional witnesses were number examined.
The High Court found that in so far as the companyviction of Bhupendra is companycerned, there was adequate evidence to uphold it but the evidence to hold Vrindavan guilty was insufficient and accordingly he was acquitted.
Decision of the High Court Feeling aggrieved, by their companyviction and the sentence imposed upon them, Vrindavan and Bhupendra filed Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court also companycluded that Geeta Bai was subjected to cruelty and harassment as a result of which she companysumed wheat tablets and died an unnatural death.
On the basis of the evidence on record the Sessions Judge found Bhupendra and Vrindavan guilty of offences punishable under Section 498 A, Section 304 B and Section 306 of the IPC.
She was subjected to beating and was number given proper clothes to wear about which she had even informed Bhika Ram.
The Sessions Judge numbered that according to the accused, Geeta Bai died due to food poisoning.
Since Geeta Bai had taken unwell, Bhupendra took her to the District Hospital at Morena for treatment.
It was held, on an examination of the oral and documentary evidence, that there was numberhing to doubt the companyrectness and veracity of the evidence given by Bhika Ram, his wife PW 2 Munni Devi, his brother in law PW 3 Munna Lal, the aunt of the deceased being PW 4 Urmila and Bhika Rams brother PW 5 Ram Narayan.
He numbered that there was numberevidence brought forth in this regard and that numberother member of the family had companyplained of any food poisoning.
Initially, the demand was for a she buffalo which was met by Bhika Ram.
10,000/ in cash on 20th August, 1996.
The case of the prosecution was that Geeta Bai was harassed by Bhupendra and members of his family who demanded dowry over and above what was given to them at the time of marriage.
By judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007 the High Court upheld the companyviction of Bhupendra but held that there was numberclinching evidence against Vrindavan and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of doubt and companysequent acquittal.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007 passed by the High Court, Bhupendra is in appeal.
It was also held that due to the inability of Bhika Ram to immediately meet the demand for additional dowry, Geeta Bai was subjected to harassment and cruelty for number bringing adequate dowry.
However, he found that the prosecution had failed to prove that Sheela Devi had humiliated Geeta Bai or treated her with cruelty which resulted in her death within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances.
It was also opined that the cause of death was suspected poisoning.1 On these broad facts, a charge sheet was filed against the three accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 304 B of the IPC and in the alternative for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
PW 8 Dr. S.C. Aggarwal informed the Station Officer of Police Station City Kotwali at about 10.30 p.m. about the incident.
It was also numbered that there were ante mortem injuries on the body of Geeta Bai.
This demand was met by Bhika Ram but there was a further demand on 20th August, 1996 for a sum of Rs.
Decision of the Trial Court The Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.
It was also numbered that Dr. S.C. Aggarwal had stated in his cross examination that the ill effects of food poisoning are number so intense as to cause the death of a person within an hour.
Then there was a further demand for Rs.
The High Court numbered the companytentions made on behalf of the companyvicts on the merits of the case, namely, that the statements of Geeta Bais parents were number reliable and that she had died as a result of food poisoning.
Both these injuries were ante mortem.
Later on, Geeta Bai died at about 11.25 p.m. and intimation of this was also sent by Dr. Aggarwal to the Station Officer of Police Station City Kotwali.
It was also companytended that some material witnesses had number been examined by the prosecution.
Separately, Bhika Ram made a companyplaint on 21st August, 1996 to the Superintendent of Police and to the District Magistrate at Morena that Bhupendra, his father Vrindavan and his mother Sheela Devi had caused the dowry death of Geeta Bai.
