The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs [email protected] Tikal
2022 Latest Caselaw 6092 MP

                                                                    01

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC No.9839 of 2022
              (STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. MARKANDEY @ TIKAL)

Gwalior, Dated :     25-04-2022

      Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor, for the

petitioner/State.

      This petition has been filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for

leave to appeal against the judgment passed by 5 th Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhind, in S.T.No.191/2013 on 16.09.2021 by which

respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Sections

498-A, 304-B, in alternate 306, 302 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

Brief facts for the disposal of this case are that on 19.11.2021

at 4.05 P.M. complainant Balkishan Sharma informed City Police

Station Bhind that he got an information through his younger brother

Brij Kishore that his sister deceased Preeti, who was married to

respondent/accused Markandey @ Tikal died. Dead body is lying

down in her house. Marg No.42/11 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded. After preparing dead body panchnama, dead body was sent

for postmortem. As per postmortem report death was occurred due to

asphyxia, as a result of hanging. During marg enquiry, statement of

mother, father and others were recorded. They alleged that due to

non-fulfillment of dowry demand, their daughter was forced to

commit suicide and died in suspicious condition. Crime No.418/11

for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section

3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The respondent was

arrested. Afterwards, case was committed.

It is not disputed that deceased died due to hanging. Statement

of Uma (PW-1), brother Brij Kishore (PW-2) and mother have been

recorded. As per the trial Court, nowhere they have mentioned in

their evidence soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty.

Besides this, they were stated that before the incident on 14.11.2011

she came to celebrate the birthday of Kaushal, nowhere she has

alleged against the respondent. Before this incident they never called

the Panchayat or reported the matter regarding demand of dowry to

anyone. Before the date of incident, her uncle and brother after

meeting her came to their house. She never complaint to them.

Looking to the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court acquitted the

respondent.

On going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that

trial Court has not committed any mistake by acquitting the

respondent. No interference is warranted. Leave to appeal is not

maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge mani

SUBASRI MANI 2022.04.26 18:56:21

-07'00'