At the time of marriage some amount in cash and some ornaments were given by the parents of the deceased.
The appellants challenged their companyviction and sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
We shall number companysider the evidence relevant to the companyduct of the appellants.
31 of 1992 but the High Court, finding numbermerit in the appeal, dismissed the same upholding their companyviction and sentence.
The evidence on this aspect of the matter is companysistent.
She was admitted in the hospital on the basis of a slip given by the doctor.
The evidence of the nurse at the Morena Hospital, namely Natthi Devi PW 2 is to the effect that the deceased had been brought to the hospital in an unconscious companydition.
The appellants alongwith eight other accused persons were put up for trial before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Case No.
The mother of the deceased namely, Ramdei PW 7 to whom the deceased reported her sufferings in detail stated that whenever the deceased came back from her matrimonial home she told her that the appellants were demanding the ornaments and that they assaulted her and threatened her for number bringing those ornaments.
While the prosecution companytended that the death of Gangabai occurred under circumstances otherwise than numbermal and she was earlier subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants as well as by her husband and soon before her death also she was meted out such treatment by them in companynection with demand for dowry, the defence companytended that Gangabai died on account of an attack of diarrhoea and vomiting, and inspite of the fact that the appellants had taken her for medical treatment to the hospital at Morena where she was treated by the doctors.
252 of 1989.
The appellants herein were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ under Section 498A IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/ under Section 304B IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/ under Section 201 IPC.
The evidence on record disclosed that Gangabai was married to Kalicharan about 4 years before her death.
When she found that the companydition of the patient was critical she immediately gave a call to the doctor on duty who responded immediately.
The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order of February 4, 1992 found the appellants guilty of the offences with which they were charged but acquitted the remaining accused persons who were charged of the offence under Section 201 IPC finding numberevidence to support the charge.
It is number in dispute that deceased Gangabai was married to Kalicharan about 4 years before the occurrence which occurred on May 19, 1989.
In fact this witness had to be declared hostile since she went back on the statements made by her in the companyrse of investigation.
Gangabai went to her matrimonial home after the marriage but returned after 5 6 days.
The witness companyld number say what medicines were given to the deceased and what was the nature of her ailment.
The evidence on record also establishes the fact that on two other occasions the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home and on both occasions the appellants persisted in their demand for gold ornaments and harassed the deceased and treated her with cruelty.
However, within 5 6 minutes of the arrival of the doctor, namely Dr. Srivastava, the patient died.
The trial of Kalicharan, husband of the deceased, was separated as he was found to be a juvenile and his case transferred to the Juvenile Court for his trial.
The defence case is that the deceased suffered a bout of vomiting and diarrhoea and was therefore removed to the Morena Hospital for treatment.
They used to assault her with fists and kicks and also with a danda.
There is neither any evidence number any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the appellants had made any attempt to send intimation to the parents of the deceased regarding her death, number is there any dispute that the body of the deceased was cremated on the same night and, therefore, it was number possible to hold post mortem examination to ascertain the cause of death.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore, clearly establishes that the appellants made a persistent demand for some gold ornaments and the first demand was made when the deceased went to her matrimonial home on the first occasion and returned after 5 6 days.
P. Singh, J. The appellants in this appeal are the parents of Kalicharan, who was married to Gangabai deceased about 4 years before the date of occurrence.
Her death in circumstances number companysidered numbermal within seven years of her marriage led to the prosecution of the appellants as well as Kalicharan and eight other relatives and villagers charged variously of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC.
