RAJKUMARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.4.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.281 of 2000 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under:

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 1998, marriage of Divya (deceased) was performed with Rajesh (PW2), son of the Appellant. They all were residing together. The relationship between Divya and Rajesh was cordial. It is alleged that the Appellant, mother-in-law of Divya was harassing Divya on account of bringing less dowry. It is further alleged that on 19.3.2000, Rajesh was not present at home. At that time, the Appellant caught the mouth of Divya and deliberately made her drink acid. Divya was immediately taken to the hospital at Goriya. From there, she was taken to Jagdishpur Hospital and from there she was taken to Chhuipali Hospital and thereafter she was taken to Burla Hospital where she was admitted on 20.3.2000. She remained admitted in the hospital for 10-11 days. Improvement in her health was not seen. It got worse. Her dying declaration (Ex.P5) was recored by Naib-Tahsildar S.D. Thakur (PW16). The hospital administration asked to take Divya back to home. She was taken back to home in the night of 31.3.2000. She died at home in the night of 31.3.2000 itself. Morgue Intimation (Ex.P7) was lodged by Chudamani (PW9). Inquest (Ex.P1) was prepared. Spot-map (Ex.P8) was prepared. First Information Report (Ex.P13) was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.K.S. Ratre (PW13). He gave post mortem examination report (Ex.P12) in which he stated that the lips and the corner side of the mouth were burnt and tongue was also burnt. Scarring was present in food-pipe. He opined that the death took place due to shrinking of food-pipe and the mode of death was suicidal. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed against her under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) To rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in her defence.