SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Shiv Kumar, has assailed the judgment and order passed by the Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur dated 24th January, 1989 in Session Trial No. 435 of 1986 (State v. Shiv Kumar and others), whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced for imprisonment of life and has been further sentenced under Section 498-A I.P.C. to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By the same judgment and order the learned trial Court has acquitted mother and sister of the appellant who also faced the trial under the same sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The prosecution story is that the accused-appellant was married with deceased Rajbala on 01st May, 1983. The house of the appellant and that of his in-laws are in the same locality. On 15th June, 1986 Rajbala was found alone in her house in severely burned condition. At that time no member of her family was present in the house. Neighbours tried to extinguish the fire and informed her parents. She was taken to hospital by the police where she succumbed to her injuries on the same day in the evening. One of the brothers of the deceased P.W.-4 Rajendra Kumar submitted a written complaint (Tehrir) in the Police Station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur at 025 P.M., on the basis of which a first information report FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 249 of 1986, under Sections 498-A & 307 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, a chik FIR was prepared. After the death of Rajbala on the same day in the evening, the sections mentioned in the FIR were altered to Section 302 I.P.C. also.

(3.) In the FIR it was mentioned by P.W.-4 that his sister Rajbala was married about two years back with the appellant, Shiv Kumar Sharma. The appellant and his sister Manju were very greedy and they started pressurizing his sister to bring more dowry. It is stated that initially they as far as possible fulfilled the demands of the appellant and his family. About six months' back his sister was physically tortured and turned out from the house in respect of the demand of dowry and was pressurized to bring Rs.10,000/- in dowry, due to which she lived at her parents' house. About three months back, the appellant took back Rajbala and assured his family members that in future they would not make any demand for dowry and they would not misbehave with her. It was also stated that at the time of marriage they had already given sufficient dowry which amongst others includes T.V., refrigerator, scooter, etc. However, on the fateful day i.e. 15th June, 1986 at 2.15 P.M. Rajbala was set on fire by the appellant, his mother and sister Manju.