JUDGEMENT

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the judgment dated 22.10.1999 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore in S.T. No.29/1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution story, on 20.10.1998, the deceased namely Jyoti was having burn injuries and she was admitted in the M.Y. Hospital, Indore on the same date of incident. One Shyam Chokse inform her parents about the incident and they immediately after receiving the information reach to the M.Y. Hospital Indore from Bhopal. Thereafter, the police station Banganga registered the FIR against the appellant appellant.

3. Thereafter, the police sent the seized articles for medical examination, prepared the spot map, taken the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused person and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned Court below after considering the statements of the witnesses framed the charges against the appellant under section 304-B of IPC.

4. Appellant was charged for offence under section 304-B of IPC. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime and prays for trial.

5. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses namely Devchand (PW-1), Bhagwatibai (PW-2), Kundanlal (PW-3), Omprakash (PW-4), Kaluram (PW-5), KamalKishore (PW-6), Nathulal (PW-7), Shyam (PW-8), Rajue (PW-9), Suresh (PW-10), Virendra Gurjar (PW-11), Inayat Hussain (PW-12), Dr. Surendra Dube (PW-13), Jitendra Singh Panwar (PW-14), Rajesh Hingaonkar (PW-15) and Dr. Sudhir Sharma (PW-16) were examined. No witness was examined by the appellant in his defense.

6. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 22.10.1999 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant, as stated above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the appellant is innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. There are omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court has not considered this fact in right aspect and convicted the appellant. It is further submitted that at the time of incident when the deceased was burning, the appellant was present and he has tried to calm the fire due to which he has also sustained the burn injuries on both the hands and thereafter, the appellant itself has taken her to the hospital for treatment, but unfortunately, the deceased was died. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has convicted the appellant only on the basis of statements of PW-3 Omprakash, PW-4, Kundanlal, PW-5, Bhagwatibai and PW-6 Devendra & PW-7 Kamalkishore who are the relatives of the deceased i.e. the brothers and mother of the deceased. It is further submitted that PW-3 Omprakash, brother of the deceased in his statements has not made any allegations against the appellant neither for dowry nor for harassment.

8. It is further submitted that the deceased was living peacefully with the appellant at Indore and the amount which the relatives of the deceased has given to the deceased/appellant, was the amount of compensation of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the said amount was being paying. It is further submitted except the omnibus allegations of the relatives, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has and role in unnatural death of his wife. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that to prove the ingredients of offence under section 304-B of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients;

(a) that the death of a woman has been