Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.9543/2012.
22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 08/05/2012 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.168/2011, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304B in alternative 302 in alternative 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Marriage of Chandabai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Raju, son of respondent Nos.2 and 3, on 13/2/06.
In the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughteRs.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Chandabai to cruelty and harassment due to not satisfaction of demand for dowry, as well as, for not begetting a son and also insisted to undergo a family planning operation and adopt a son and, ultimately, on 5/9/11, Chandabai, not only herself consumed poisonous substance, but also administered the same to her daughters and, they all, expired the same day.
Morgue intimations were recorded and, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
In the post mortem reports, cause of death was reflected as ingestion of some unknown poison.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, we have perused the impugned judgment.
After appreciation of evidence and material available on record, the trial Court found that Dayaram (PW1).Krishnabai (PW2).Mamtabai (PW3) and Hareram (PW4) were declared hostile in respect of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Krishnabai had admitted in para 8 of her cross-examination that Chandabai cordially used to come and go from and to her matrimonial home and during her lifetime, had not raised any complaint.
Accordingly, the trial Court held that demand for dowry and cruelty were not proved against the respondents, in as much as, there was no corresponding evidence against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that against respondent no.1, being fraught with material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, was not credible.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perveRs.or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question.
The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)