The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of cruelty and abetment of suicide under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC, respectively, in order to convict the accused.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, Camp at Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 19/7 of 2006/05, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for offences under Section 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 25.03.2004 a telephonic message was received from Kanshi Ram, Ex-Pradhan of village Slapper at Police Station Bilaspur at around 11.10., A.M. to the effect that one Pushpa wife of Jasbir Singh resident of village Nagraon had died in suspicious circumstances. On the said basis, Investigating Officer PW-15 Duglu Ram accompanied by other police officials reached village Nagraon, where complainant Bhagat Ram PW-1 recorded his statement Ext.PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in which, he stated that he was a resident of village Phufali Julana and had three sons and one daughter. His daughter Pushpa was married on 17.02.2003 with accused Jasbir Singh and she gave birth to a girl child aged four months. One month back Pushpa had visited his house and alleged that her father and mother-in-law as well as husband were making certain demands on account of dowry on the ground that ornaments and television had not been given at the time of ‘Milni’. On this, he told his daughter that he had given everything that was to be given but in future other things shall also be given by him. On 25.03.2004 one Sunder Singh gave a telephonic message at 8.00 A.M. that his daughter was suffering from giddiness and was being taken in a van to Jhandutta and while he was getting ready to come to Jhandutta another telephone came there that his daughter has expired. In these circumstances, he alongwith his wife and Pradhan Kanshi Ram went to village Nagraon. The complainant expressed that his daughter has died due to harassment meted out to her by the accused on account of dowry and previously also she was being tortured by them.

3. On the basis of said report, FIR Ext. PW14/A was registered. Postmortem of the dead body of Pushpa was conducted and as per the postmortem report, the opinion of the Doctor was that cause of the death was asphyxia probably due to chocking.

4. An application Ext. PW12/B was moved by the police seeking opinion as to how the death of Pushpa Devi had occurred whether due to asphyxia or due to some disease or giddiness and whether the injuries on her face and nose were the outcome offal, on which application PW-12 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan has given his reply Ext.PW12/C with regard to the said queries. The final opinion after going through the report of Chemical Examiner was given by Dr. N.K. Sankhyan PW-12 highlighting that deceased died due to asphyxia after consuming phenyl poison but possibility of asphyxia due to chocking after bleeding from nose due to accidental fall could not be ruled out during epileptic fit.

5. The police carried out investigation and challan was presented in the Court. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The learned trial Court on the basis of the material placed on record by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in furtherance of their common intention had subjected the deceased to cruelty and further the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in furtherance of their common intention had abetted the commission of suicide by Pushpa Devi.

7. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment of acquittal returned by the learned trial Court is based on flimsy grounds and is a result of mis-appreciation of evidence produced on record by the prosecution. According to him, the prosecution had proved beyond reason