MOHAN DEI AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . A. No. 554/2012 has been filed by Mohan Dei (mother -in -law of the deceased) and Crl. A. No. 847/2012 has been filed by Jagdish @ Bobby (husband of the deceased). Both the appellants have assailed the common judgment dated 21.4.2012 and order on sentence dated 25.4.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which both the appellants were held guilty and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In addition, the appellant, Jagdish @ Bobby (appellant in Crl. A. No. 847/2012) has also been convicted under Section 498 -A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default thereof, simple imprisonment of six months.

(2.) IN this case the deceased died in her matrimonial home within four and a half years of her marriage with the appellant (Jagdish). On 16.10.2010 at about 11:31 hours information was received at Police Station Jagat Puri, Khureji Khas Gali No. 2, Makaan No. 213 near Meat Shop and the message flashed was 'meri gharwali ne phasi laga li hai'. On this information DD no. 13B was recorded. SI Subhash Chand along with Constable Murari and Constable Pappu Rathi reached at the spot at the address given in the information where they found the body of a lady lying on the bed in the room. The name of the lady was revealed as Sangita, wife of Jagdish. One piece of chunni was found tied with the fan and the other piece of chunni was lying on the floor. Crime team was called at the spot and the photographs of the spot were taken. Sangita had died within four years of her marriage and therefore SDM Preet Vihar was informed. SDM inspected the body and found injury marks on her face and bleeding from nose, mouth and back of head of the body. There was dark redness on the neck. There were blood spots on the bed sheet, cushion and pillow covers. No suicide note was found. The bed sheet, pillow covers and cushion covers were seized. Both the pieces of chunni were also seized. The body was sent to LBS Hospital where the doctor declared her "brought dead". The body was then sent to LBS Hospital Mortuary for post -mortem. The relatives of the deceased were informed. On 17.10.2010, the relatives of the deceased came and identified the body of Sangita. Statement of Sh. Yad Ram, father of Sangita was recorded by the SDM wherein he stated that he had married his daughter Sangita on 06.12.2006 and had spent Rs. 4 lakhs in her marriage. At the time of marriage, there was no demand of cash but the husband, mother -in -law and sister in law of his deceased daughter started making demand of cash since after six months of the marriage. On their demand, he paid Rs. 70,000/ - and that two days before the incident, he had sent Rs. 10,000/ - at the house of his daughter through his nephew (Bhanja) Ravi. He stated that on 16.10.2010 at about 12.00 pm, he came to know from the police that his daughter has died. He suspected that his daughter had not died a natural death but was killed and that Ved Prakash (Jeth), Sunder (Jeth), Daulat (Jeth), Jagdish @ Bobby (husband), mother -in -law of Sangita and her Nanad Nakki were responsible for her murder. He further stated that elder sister in law of his daughter also used to tease his daughter and that his daughter was four months pregnant and that her unborn child has also expired. He further stated before the SDM that accused Jagdish was a drunkard and used to beat his daughter. On 18.10.2010, post -mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The doctor gave opinion with regard to the cause of death as Asphyxia as a result of combined effect of ligature strangulation and manual smothering. FIR was registered under Section 302/201/34 IPC.

(3.) MR . Nigam, counsel for the appellants submits that as far as appellant, Mohan Dei (mother -in -law) is concerned, there is no evidence on record, which can be the basis of her conviction. It is also contended that the witnesses PW -2 (Yad Ram) and PW -3 (Smt. Raj Wati) being the father and mother of the deceased respectively did not support the case of the prosecution and in fact they testified that the deceased was not harassed by her in -laws and neither any demand of dowry was made. It is contended that the court has placed undue reliance on the testimonies of PW -9 (Nand Ram) and PW -16 (Mukesh Kumar). Counsel for the appellants contends that both these witnesses were simply neighbours and were not the persons who would be aware of the internal affairs of the family and moreover, it is unnatural that the deceased would have told her neighbours about her family affairs, more particularly when none of the witnesses have testified that they had intimate relations with the parents of the deceased or the deceased herself. It is also contended that the trial court has erred in placing reliance on a photocopy of the undertaking alleged to have been given by the appellant, Jagdish @ Bobby. It is also contended that in the absence of any evidence, the appellant, Jagdish @ Bobby could not be convicted for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC.