Appellant's conviction under IPC sections was overturned due to insufficient evidence of intent to instigate suicide or meet legal standards for harassment.

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2005 passed by learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.211/2004 whereby, the trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons of the alleged offence and also acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B of IPC but convicted and sentenced him as under:-

2. As per the prosecution story, the deceased Mithila was married to the present appellant 6 years prior to the date of the incident and they were residing in Mahamaya Para Ambikapur. Soon after the marriage, the appellant/husband- Poonam Ram, mother-in-law Fulmatiya, Sister in law Vijay Laxmi and brother-in-law Guruprasad used to harass the deceased Mithila on account of demand of dowry. Prior to the incident, the deceased Mithila used to reside separately with the present appellant/husband in Namnakala, Ambikapur. Despite living separately, the deceased was harassed by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband. On 10.07.2003, the appellant along with the deceased and their children had gone to Mahamaya Para, Ambikapur to meet his mother- Fulmatiya Bai. The sister-in-law and brother-in-law were also there. The sister-in-law of the deceased Vijay Laxmi made tea, and after taking it, the deceased along with her husband left the home and was going to her house in rickshaw. On the way, the deceased vomited blood and thereafter died. The brother-in- law Guru Prasad gave information to the Police Station. Thereafter, a Morgue was registered and the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted. The clothes and viscera of the deceased were examined and it was found that the deceased had died due to consuming poison. Thereafter, FIR was registered. During investigation, seizures were made from the accused/appellant. Spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the charge- sheet was filed before the learned trial Court under Sections 304-B and 498A of IPC followed by framing of charges by the learned trial Court accordingly, to which the appellant along with other co-accused abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, acquitted the accused persons namely Fulmatiya Bai, Vijay Laxmi and Guruprasad of the alleged offence whereas the accused/appellant- Poonam Ram Bargah was also acquitted of the offence under Section 304B of IPC but he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law, fact and material available on record. The learned trial Court erred in holding the guilt of the appellant as the prosecution has totally failed to establish the ingredients of offence and also failed to prove motive of the appellant in commission of the offence. The learne