CHHABABAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged in this appeal their conviction Under Sections 306 and 498-A, I. P. C. and sentence of R. I. for eight years on the first charge to appellant No. 1, R. I. for three years on the said charge to appellant No. 2 and R. I. for two years to each of them on the second charge recorded vide judgment dated 10. 11. 86 passed in S. T. No. 33/86 of Khandwa Sessions Division. The third accused Vinayak was acquitted.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that appellant Vinayak is the son of appellant Chhaba Bai. Deceased Sheela Bai, daughter of Rati Lal (PW-9), was married with Vinayak on 29. 11. 84. After wedding she came and stayed with her husband for about 2/3 days and returned back to her parents place. After about six months she again joined her husband and stayed in her marital house for 5/6 months. During Deepawali of 1985 she went to her parents place alongwith her brother. After Deepawali she was escorted back to her marital home by her brother Sanjay. On 24. 12. 85 at about 4/5 a. m. Sheela Bai got burnt with kerosene oil. She was removed to Nepanagar Hospital the same day and was admitted by Dr. Madhuri Khare (PW-4), who examined her. Four days later on 28. 12. 85 at 4. 05. a. m. she succumbed to her injuries. It is also admitted that no dowry was settled when Vinayak was married with Sheela Bai. It is also not in dispute that after she got burnt intimation was sent to Rati Lal and he had come to Nepanagar and Sheela Bai died thereafter.

(3.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Vinayak brought Sheela Bai in a burnt state to Nepanagar Hospital at about 6. 00 a. m. Lady Dr. Madhuri Khare was on duty. She sent intimation of this case vide Ex. P-5 to the police. Since Sheela Bai was conscious, the said Doctor enquired as to how she got burnt and the reply given by Sheela Bai admissible as dying declaration was recorded in Ex. P-6. When Doctor Khare examined Sheela Bai, she found that her body was exuding smell of kerosene oil and was 95% burnt. The bed head ticket of Sheela Bai is Ex. P-7. The police on getting the intimation recorded it in Journal (Ex. P-13 ). Station House Officer R. K. Tiwari (PW-10) reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Sheela Bai being Ex. P-15. He was told by Dr. Khare that she had already examined the patient and recorded her dying declaration. These documents were handed over to her by the said Police Officer. Since Vinayak has also burn injuries, he was medically examined. Doctor's report is Ex. P-9. The Investigating Officer reached the spot, prepared map (Ex. P-10) and seized Stove, kerosene oil container, plastic 'hadi', brass 'katori' with smell of kerosene oil, two match boxes and a piece of burnt Sari vide Ex. P-ll. Initially the offence was registered Under Section 306 I. P. C. against the appellants and Another crime Under Section 309 I. P. C. was registered against Sheela Bai. After the death of Sheela Bai, inquest was held and the body was sent for autopsy. Doctor Obeja (PW-1) conducted post-mortem examination and gave his report Ex. P-2. Offence Under Section 498-A was added and charge-sheet was presented in Court. The allegation is that when Sheela Bai came to her marital home the second time she was taunted by appellant Chhaba Bai and her daughter, the acquitted accused, for her failure to have brought in dowry Handa', watch and ring for her husband. She was tortured on this account. When Sheela Bai went to her parents place during Deepawali she was instructed by appellant No. 1 to bring the aforesaid articles with her. When Sheela Bai told all about it to her father, he assured her that he will explain the situation to the appellants. When Sheela Bai returned back after Deepawali and did not bring with her the aforesaid articles she was asked as to why she did not bring those things with her. The dispute on this account went on till the night of 23rd of December, 1985. Sheela Bai got desperate and burnt herself with kerosene oil as stated above. The appellants defence was that Sheela Bai received the burn injuries by accident. In all five defence witnesses were examined including appellant No. 2. The learned Trial Judge held the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and recorded the impured finding.