RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ram Singh has challenged the judgment and order of conviction under Section 306 and 498A IPC wherefor he has appropriately been sentenced. Vide Sessions Trial No. 35/2001, four accused persons, namely, Ram Singh (husband), Mohan Singh (father -in -law) Smt. Prema Devi (mother -in -law) and Km. Nandi (sister -in -law) were tried for the offences of Section 498A, 306, 304B IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial culminated into the acquittal of the rest of the accused persons from all the offences stated above except Ram Singh, who has been convicted for the offences as aforementioned. Ram Singh was wedded with Ms. Deepa on 13.5.1999. She died in her matrimonial house within a year of her marriage, viz., 13.5.2000. She was a young lady of 19 years as disclosed in the post -mortem report. She was found 100 per cent burnt in her room of matrimonial house. The doctor has disclosed the cause of death as shock and exhaustion as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. Although no smell of kerosene oil could be detected from the burnt body, but the said smell was detected from the bra of the deceased. Accused appellant Ram Singh is an army personnel, who had come to his house on leave from his services.

(2.) BEFORE this Court, the evidence of PW 1 Smt. Lachhima Devi (mother of the deceased), PW 3 Gusain Singh (father of the deceased) and PW 4 Laxman Singh (uncle of the deceased) have been read over and the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the day of the incident was Saturday. The deceased was bent upon to leave her matrimonial house to her parent's house. When she was persuaded not to leave as such because her husband has come to enjoy his leaves, then she closed herself in a room, door was bolted and she set ablazed herself by pouring kerosene oil on her body. This argument is quite unsubstantial looking to the entire facts and evidence available on the record. Firstly, the attempt has been made to argue that door was broken open by some Digar Singh, another, villager of the place of incident, but that Digar Singh has never been examined as a defence witness in order to prove this fact. Moreover, PW 3, father of the deceased, has testified that when he reached at the spot on 14, the door of the room of the incident was not broken at all and it was in a quite working position. PW 3 and PW 4 have testified in so many words that inside the room of the incident, everything including the bedding, calendars on the wall and other materials available in the room were safe and in ok condition. There was no visible sign inside the room showing as if a human body could have been burnt 100 per cent within it.

(3.) PW 1 as well as PW 3 and PW 4, all have proved in so many words that eversince the solemnization of the marriage of Ms. Deepa with the appellant, she was subjected to the consistent traumatized behaviour on the question of demand of dowry. She was tortured a number of times asking her to fetch the dowry from her parents house.