Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Anita Bai hereinafter referred to as the deceased was married to the accused on 14.12.1990 at Allahabad U.P. whereafter she came to Dhanpuri along with the accused on 15.12.1990.
Four injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased.
The room was bolted from inside.
Several factors were taken numbere of.
Anita Bai died on 25.12.1990 at Dhanpuri in her room in their house.
Thereafter, Dr. Gautam PW 1 and Dr. Pathak PW 2 were called, who advised them to take Anita to the hospital where she was declared dead.
An appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court which by the impugned judgment held the respondent accused to be number guilty.
There was numbermotive for killing as the alleged demand of dowry was number established and for that reason the Trial Court itself had directed acquittal of the accused persons from the allegations relatable to Section 304B. The High Court also numbered that there was numberevidence of any strangulation, as was held to have been done by the respondent accused.
Firstly, the respondent accused and his father immediately after the occurrence called the doctors PW 1 and PW 2.
The Trial Court wile discarding the evidence of the doctor referred to some authorities to discard the evidence of the doctor.
It was found that the case was based merely on circumstantial evidence and there was numberclinching material to substantiate all or any of the companytinuous link of incriminating circumstances and show that the respondent was guilty of the alleged offences.
Inquest report was made and dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was companyducted by two doctors PW 6 and PW 12 .
In response, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior advocate for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court had proceeded on surmises and companyjectures and, therefore, the High Court was justified in directing acquittal.
The Trial Court found the respondent hereinafter referred to as the accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/ in addition to sentence of three years RI imposed for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs.200/ with default stipulation for fines.
P 14 was lodged by the accused at P.S. Amlai, District Shahdol on 25.12.1990 at about 11.40 p.m. It was reported in Ex.
The accused persons faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 201 IPC.
P 15 was recorded.
So far as respondent is companycerned, the companyviction was made, as afore noted and sentences imposed.
The circumstances presented unerringly pointed out at the guilt of the accused.
Holding the evidence to be number sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused, acquittal was directed.
All the three accused persons including respondent were found number guilty of offences relatable to Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
On being pushed, the latch fell down and the door opened.
P 14 by accused Sanjay Rai that he had gone to the house of one Rajendra Sharma and had returned from there at about 9.00 p.m. and went to his room.
Written report about the incident Ex.
During investigation, it came to light that the respondent accused and his parents who also faced trial with the accused were treating the deceased with cruelty on account of unfulfilled demand of dowry.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. State of Madhya Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent by upsetting judgment of companyviction recorded by the Trial Court.
He found that his wife, deceased, was hanging from the bolt of the almirah, upon which he caught hold of her by the waist and called his father, who cut the piece of cloth by which she was hanging.
It was also found that asphyxia companyld have resulted even if the body was hanging by a piece of cloth which was cut immediately after the hanging.
On the basis of the above report, FIR Ex.
