IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI st ON THE 21 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 972 of 1999 VINOD GUPTA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Smt. Shanti Tiwari - appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellants by Court.

Smt. Geeta Yadav - Govt. Advocate for State.

JUDGMENT This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.1999 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari District Shahdol in S.T. No.181 of 1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- each and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- each respectively with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant No.1 - Vinod Gupta 3 years prior to the date of incident. Immediately after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to severe beatings at her matrimonial home. She was not given anything to eat. There were demand of money, a vehicle as well as television towards dowry by the appellants. The deceased whenever visited her parental home she Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR always made a complaint regarding cruelty at the behest of the accused persons. On 30-04-1998 the deceased was done to death at around 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.. Thereafter, Marg was recorded and enquiry was conducted, and offence punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC was registered against the accused-appellants.

3 . After filing of the charge-sheet the present appellants were subjected to trial and by the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as has been stated hereinabove.

4. Learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction is unsustainable and deserves quashment. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case, there is not a single eye witness to corroborate the prosecution story. The counsel contends that the trial Court while convicting the present appellants has mainly relied upon the testimony of Kalsum (PW-01) wife of Suleman and also the testimony of Radheshyam (PW-18). It is contended by the counsel that, if testimony of Kalsum (PW-01) is perused carefully, the same would reveal that she was an interested witness. As per her testimony, it is evident that the witness used to deal in the business of selling bangles and on account of the said aspect, there was a business rivalry between the appellants as well as the said witness. Paragraph No.4 of the testimony also reflects that according to the witness she was abused at the spot by the appellant No.2. The counsel also contends that paragraph No.15 of testimony of the said witness reveals that the deceased never disclosed anything regarding manhandling to this witness by the present appellants, nor it was ever disclosed by the deceased that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR present appellants used to treat her with cruelty. The witness further admitted that she did not notice any infirmity so far as the limbs of the deceased were concerned.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Kalsum (PW-01) in paragraph No.21 has specifically stated that she was not aware, as to how the deceased was done to death, nor she was in a position to show anything about the cause of death. The counsel contends that there is testimony of Nantuni (PW-02), who also did not depose anything against the present appellants. Simultaneously, Kabirdas (PW-03) in paragraph No.3 stated that he is relative of the deceased and the deceased never told anything about the present appellants nor mentioned any instance of cruelty. The said witness also mentioned the dispute between Sattar and the