The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 304-B, Section 498-A, and Section 302 of IPC, and the burden of proof in establishing an alibi.

JUDGMENT :

Shailendra Shukla, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. preferred against the judgment dated 19.9.2001, pronounced in S.T. No. 179/2000 pronounced by ASJ, Biaora District Rajgarh, acquitting the respondents from charges framed under Section 302 in alternative 302/34, Section 304-B and Section 498A of IPC.

2. The admitted facts are that the respondent No. 1-Beeramlal is the father-in-law of the deceased-Geetabai and respondent No. 2-Hukum Singh is the husband of the deceased Geetabai.

3. The prosecution story in short was that Geetabai was married to Hukum Singh, respondent No. 2, 4 to 5 years prior to her death. Geetabai's mother had expired and her father Anar Singh had contracted Natra marriage with another woman and Geetabai and her two siblings were reared by her maternal grandfather Ramlal and he had solemnized the marriage of Geetabai with Hukum Singh. Whenever Geetabai used to come to her maternal grandfather house, she would complain that the respondents and her mother-in-law are harassing her on account of dowry. They used to tell Geetabai to arrange money from Dev Singh who is her maternal uncle. As per the prosecution story, Panchayat was then called by Ramlal which was attended by Mangilal, father of the respondent No. 1 and who assured that Geetabai would not be harassed any more. Geetabai was sent with Mangilal from her maternal home. However, the harassment again commenced against her and Geetabai was sent to her parental home to fetch money. Mangilal again came to fetch Geetabai. Thereafter on the next day Geetabai was found to have died. A merg was instituted. On postmortem it was found that Geetabai had died as a result of throttling. The respondents were arrested whereas the mother-in-law Laadbai absconded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondents abjured their guilt. Charges were read over to them and they pleaded alibi. It was stated that Beeramlal, the father-in-law was in his agriculture field at the time of incident and husband Hukum Singh along with his mother had gone to village called as Ness. One defence witness namely Nathulal (DW1) was examined on behalf of the respondents. The trial ultimately resulted on acquittal. The trial court although found it proved that Geetabai was murdered by strangulation, but accepted the plea of 'alibi' of accused and acquitted them.

4. In the appeal it has been stated that there is ample evidence to show that Geetabai was harassed constantly. That it was wrongly concluded that marriage of Geetabai had taken place more than 7 years before the incident and that the trial court was at fault in concluding that no dowry had been demanded from her by respondents.

5. The question before this court is whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeal, the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside?.

6. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, the father of Geetabai Anar Singh (PW2), the maternal uncle Dev Singh (PW4), maternal grandfather Ramlal (PW12), maternal uncle Hari Singh (PW11) neighbours of the respondents namely Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) and other witnesses including police witnesses.

7. The question was whether the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 less than 7 years before the incident of her death. Ramlal (PW12) stated that Geetabai was married to Hukum Singh 4 to 5 years earlier. However, in para 6 of his cross examination he states that when Geetabai was married she was only 7 to 8 years old and when Gauna was performed she was 12 to 15 years old and Gauna was performed two years after the marriage. However in her postmortem report Exhibit P/9, age of Geetabai was shown to be approximately 18 years which shows that Geetabai must have been married 10 years earlier to the date of incident. Anar Singh (PW2) in examination-in-chief in para 3 states that marriage of Geetabai with Hukum Singh was solemnized two years earlier. However, in cross-examination in para 8 he admits tha