ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.3.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, Dist. Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 122/1998 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to RI for 10 years.

2. The prosecution case is that on 5.6.1998, one Babulal had given intimation to Police Station Kantaphod that Gulab Bai wife of Santosh had consumed poisonous substance. She died on the way when she was being taken to Indore. On the said intimation, a Merg No. 12/1998 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. After recording the statement of mother, father and brother of the deceased, a case was registered against the husband Santosh and 2 other persons: mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. Since the deceased died because of unnatural death within a period of 5 years of her marriage for demand of dowry and, therefore, offence under section 304-B of IPC was registered in Crime No.95/1998. After the investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the case was committed for the trial.

3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and submitted that they have been falsely implicated. After the trial, 2 persons were acquitted and the appellant, who is husband of the deceased, has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. So far death of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution examined Dr. K.M. Jain (PW-4), who stated that he was posted on the post of Medical Officer in Primary Health Center Kantaphod, had examined the deceased. The postmortem was carried out by Dr. R.K. Jain and Dr. Bulbul Sen. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ingestion of some pesticidal drug. The postmortem report is Ex.P/1 which was proved by Dr. K.M. Jain (PW-4).

4. Dr. K.M. Jain (PW-4) deposed that the death of the deceased was unnatural and because of consumption of poisonous substance. Thus, the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased was other than the normal circumstances. The prosecution examined the mother of the prosecutrix namely, Narmadabai. In her statement, she stated that the deceased was married with the appellant. In marriage, they had given the dowry. She stayed in in-laws house about one year. Thereafter when she came to her parents house, she refused to go to the in-laws house and made a complaint that she was being harassed by the appellant, mother-in-law and brother-in-law because of nongiving of dowry. She was also not being provided bed, food etc. Since she did not went to the house of the in-laws, Santosh made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the deceased along with the parents was called and the statement of appellant was recorded that he will maintain good relations with the deceased and will not harass her. She stated that before the death of her daughter, her husband had gone to the house of the deceased. The father of the deceased namely, Ram Avtar (PW-15) stated that the deceased was married with the appellant 6 years before and after one year, Gauna was performed. After 15 days, her daughter had come to their house. She made a complaint that she was being tortured by the appellant, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. She was being tortured because of not bringing dowry. The accused persons were asking her to bring dowry. When the deceased was not sent to the in-laws house, the husband approached the Sub-Divisional Officer and the statement of the appellant was recorded and on his assurance that he will not harass the deceased, she was sent to the in-laws house. In para-3 of his deposition, he stated that the deceased had made a complaint that she was being harassed for not bringing dowry.

5. Shantu Bai (PW-1), who is aunt of the deceased has also stated that in para-3 of her statement, the deceased had stated that her husband, mother-inlaw and brother-in-law were harassing her for the dowry. They were also not providing