DEVENDRA SINGH SAJWAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trials No. 5 of 2007 and 43 of 2007 whereby appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34, 304-B/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo two month additional imprisonment under Section 498A/34 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 year each under Section 304B/34 IPC with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 (father of deceased Shashi) lodged an FIR on 13.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. with police station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal stating therein that his daughter Shahsi got married with appellant Devendra Singh Sajwan on 27.11.2004; he gave TV, fridge, cooler, sewing machine and jewellery, as per his financial capacity; after one week of marriage, Maruti Car was demanded stating that since appellant Devendra Singh Sajwan was engaged in computer business and he had to bring different items pertaining to computer from Delhi, therefore, car was required; since PW1 was lower paid Government employee, therefore, he was not able to pay the cost of a car; he, however, got prepared an FDR in the joint name of Devendra Singh Sajwan and Shashi but appellant refused to accept the same, however, kept on demanding the car; PW1 requested Devendra Singh Sajwan, his father Yashwant Singh Sajwan, mother Sateshwari Devi and younger brother Jitendra Singh Sajwan repeatedly not to demand car, however, they did not agree and kept on demanding the car; PW1 asked his daughter to report the matter to police, however, his daughter refused to report the matter to the police saying, if matter was reported to the police, then relations would be spoiled; meanwhile, his daughter delivered a son on 16.08.2006; at that time, PW1 went to Kotdwar Hospital to see his daughter; his daughter told him that she was feeling alright and since she delivered a son, therefore, perhaps, appellants would not harass her; on 24.10.2006 on the occasion of Bhaiya Duj, PW1 sent his son and daughter to the matrimonial home of Shashi but they were maltreated and were told that if their parents failed to give car, they would obtain medical certificate of the appellant to the effect that he was mentally ill and they would kill Shashi and they would get his son appellant re-married and would accept desired dowry; appellants got the accommodation vacated from earlier tenant to commit crime and also got their telephone disconnected, so that deceased Shashi could not make any contact with her family members; on 13.11.2006 at about 09.00 a.m. some unknown person phoned PW1 that her daughter had been killed by setting her on fire; Devendra Singh Sajwan, father-in-law Yashwant Singh Sajwan, mother-in-law Sateshwari Devi and brother-in-law Jitendra Singh Sajwan have killed Shashi for not giving Maruti Car in dowry, therefore, after registering of the FIR appropriate action be taken against the appellants.

(3.) Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Shashi and as per postmortem report and opinion of Dr. Subhash Kumar (PW7), she died due to 100% burn injuries. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Bhajan Singh Chauhan, PW2 Vijay Pal Singh, PW3 Jitendra Dabral, PW4 Naim Bux, PW5 Smt. Pushpa Devi (mother of the deceased), PW6 Dipendra Chauhan (brother of the deceased), PW7 Dr. Subhash Kumar, PW8 SI V.B.S. Negi, PW9 Minakshi Parwal, PW10 C.D. Pant, Investigating Officer D.S.P. and PW11 SI Prithvi Singh were examined and thereafter, statements of accused appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the side of defence, Surendra Singh DW1, Mukundi Lal DW2 and SI Desh Raj Singh Sharma DW3 were examined.