JUDGMENT :- The appellant has filed this appeal, challenging his conviction u/S. 498-A of the IPC, sentence to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof to undergo RI for six months, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaora in ST No. 181/1990, judgment dated 1st October 1994.

2. Prosecution case in short as put forth before the trial Court is that on 6-10-1989 at about 7.45 p.m. wife of the appellant Jubeda committed suicide in his residential house situated in Jaora because the appellant was intentionally harassing her and ill-treating her by demand of dowry, she was also beaten. Because of demand of dowry, ill-treatment, harassment and beating, the wife of the appellant Jubeda committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.

3. The matter was reported from Civil Hospital, Jaora to police by Dr. Shrivastava through report (Ex. P. 1). SHO Laxmansingh Chouhan (P. W.7) registered inquest No. 15/ 1989 and started enquiry. In enquiry, he found that appellant was ill-treating his wife for demand of dowry and registered the offence u/S. 306 of the IPC against the appellant. In search of the house of the appellant, letters were seized and one letter was seized from father of deceased. Fate Mohammed (P.W.3). After inquest proceedings, dead body was sent for postmortem examination and the same was conducted on 7-10-1989 by Dr. I. L. Chandelkar (P.W. 2). The postmortem report is Ex. P.2. Dr. Chandelkar did not find any external or internal injury and could not be in a position to give any opinion about cause of death, therefore, he preserved viscera and same was sent for chemical examination. In viscera report vide Ex. P. 24 it has come that deceased consumed some poisonous substance/pesticide "BHC". On completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet for commission of offence of dowry death against the appellant.

4. The appellant denied the charges and submitted that he had love marriage with the deceased and never demanded dowry and also did not ill-treat her for demand of dowry. The appellant pleaded his false implication. He has not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court, while acquitting the appellant for commission of offence u/Ss. 304-B and 306 of the IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above.

5. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to establish that the appellant practiced cruelty with the deceased wife and the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant u/S. 498-A of the IPC especially when the offence u/Ss. 304-B and 306 of the IPC have not been proved by the prosecution and the appellant has been acquitted from these charges. The learned counsel has also urged that the learned trial Court mainly relied upon the letters (Ex. P.9 to P. 19) seized by Investigating Officer Laxmansingh Chouhan (P.W. 7) from the house of the appellant, but no questions were put in accused statement by the learned trial Court recorded u/S. 313 of the Cr. P.C., therefore, any contents of the letter cannot be used against the appellant as evidence because he has not been given opportunity of explaining the contents and substantive and material circumstances. According to learned counsel, it has caused prejudice to the appellant.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant is not sustainable because the letters (Ex. P.9 to P. 19) said to have been seized by Laxmansingh Chouhan, Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) cannot be taken into consideration in evidence because there is no evidence available on record that these letters were written by deceased to appellant. Though,

these letters were sent to handwriting expert along with specimen handwriti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document