The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proximate and live link between cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned, as well as the need for evidence to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Palo, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 198/2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002 have arisen out of the same judgment dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 13/92, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted appellant Manoj under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. At the same time acquitted the accused Ramkishan and Sharda Devi on the same charges.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, appellant, Manoj has filed appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. assailing and requesting for setting aside the judgment. Whereas, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002 under Section 378 of Cr. P.C challenging the judgment of acquittal of respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi.

3. It is not disputed that Rajni Saxena was married to appellant Manoj Shrivastava in June 1987 and respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi are the parents of the appellant Manoj Shrivastava. It is also not disputed that the accused persons are taken into custody on 22nd September, 1997 by memo of arrest Ex. P/23.

4. The facts transpired before the learned Trial Court are that on 10.9.1991 an information was sent by the District Hospital, Bhind to the Police Chowki of the District Hospital that Smt. Rajni Saxena wife of Manoj Shrivastava aged about 24 years, resident of Jain Mandir, Bhind has been brought dead to the Hospital. Merge No. 36/91 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Dead body was sent for postmortem. Viscera received by police was sent for chemical examination.

5. During investigation, it was found that on 30.6.1987 marriage of Rajni Saxena was performed with accused Manoj Shrivastava. The accused Manoj Shrivastava was demanding scooter from the father of the deceased Rajni since the time of marriage. As the demand was not fulfilled, accused Manoj, his father and mother were harassing Rajni and she was subjected to cruelty. They have threatened her that she will be divorced, if the demand is not fulfilled. Despite the fact that several persons tried to resolve but the accused persons did not pay any heed. Because of this, deceased Rajni Saxena died in suspicious circumstances on 10.9.1991. Then, father of the deceased was sent a message about her death. Police City Kotwali, Bhind registered a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused persons.

6. Charges framed and explained to the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused persons abjured guilt. In their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they contended that they have been falsely implicated. Accused/appellant, Manoj claimed that the deceased Rajni Saxena died due to illness and on that day he was not at home. They claimed that, father of the deceased Ramprakash claimed the expenses borne by him, at the time marriage, from the accused persons. When this demand was not met, he lodged the report on false ground.

7. The learned Trial Court after adducing the evidence, pronounced the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi and convicted appellant, Manoj Shrivastava under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. He is sentenced 7 years RI under Section 304-B IPC and under Section498-A, he has been sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In lieu of fine, he has to undergo RI for another period of six months.

8. Appellant, Manoj has assailed the judgment on the grounds that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law. The evidence has not been evaluated and analyzed properly. There was no demand of dowry. The deceased Rajni Saxena and the appellant had gone to her parent's place to attend marriage of her younger brother Rajiv they stayed there 10 to 15 days. No such demand was ever made by him. The finding of the learned trial Court is, therefore, erroneous. The letters Ex. P/2 to Ex. P/12 on which the Trial Court based its conviction are merely photo copies.