MADAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 28.09.2010 and order on sentence dated 29.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohini in Sessions Case No.18/1 in case FIR No. 65/2009, P.S. Model Town u/s 498A/304B IPC whereby the appellant was convicted for offence u/s 498A/304B IPC and was sentenced to undergo seven years simple imprisonment for offence u/s 304B IPC and sentenced to three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence u/s 498A IPC; in default of payment of fine to undergo further 9 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) Prosecution case in nut-shell is that appellant Madanlal got married to Rakhi(since deceased) in February 2006. Out of the wedlock, Rakhi gave birth to a female child after about one year of the marriage but the said child expired. Thereafter she gave birth to one male child. After the marriage Rakhi started living at her matrimonial home at B-62, Punarvas Colony, Narela, Delhi After six months of the marriage, she along with accused shifted to KhilonaWala Bagh, Model Town, Delhi. It is further the case of prosecution that on 22.02.2009 information was given by the brother of the deceased that his sister had died due to burn injuries and he has apprehended the person who set her on fire. On the basis of this information, DD No.25A was recorded and was transmitted to Sub Inspector Dharampal, who along with Constable Jagdish and Constable Om Prakash reached E-2/472, Nand Nagri, behind Gagan Cinema where the dead body of Rakhi was lying in the gali. The dead body was sent to mortuary of Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital. The jhuggi at Khilona Wala Bagh was locked to preserve the spot. On the next day i.e on 23.02.2009, Executive Magistrate Mr. M.Z.Ansari and Inspector Jeevan Ram Parmar reached the jhuggi at Khilona Wala Bagh, Model Town, Delhi. On the directions of Mr. Ansari, statement of Umesh and Devki, brother and mother, respectively of deceased were recorded. On the direction of Mr. Ansari, Executive Magistrate, FIR u/s 498A/304B IPC was registered and inquest proceedings were conducted. Crime team was called; photographs were taken; exhibits were lifted from the spot and accused was arrested. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused by recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded his innocence and alleged false implication in this case by the police officials at the behest and at the instance of his in-laws. According to him he never mal-treated his wife in any manner and never demanded any dowry. He was working as security guard and his duty hours were from 8 a.m to 8 p.m. His in-laws used to interfere and instigate his wife against him. At the time of occurrence, he was not present in his house and when he returned back from duty, he came to know that his wife had expired. He did not prefer to lead any evidence. After scrutinising the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned herein above. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.