BABURAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three appellants were tried in the Court of Sessions. Bhatinda in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1987 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge against them was the appellant No. 2 -Krishna Devi the mother -in -law of Santosh Rani, poured kerosene on her and Babu Ram, the father -in -law, threw a lighted match stick on her and when Santosh Rani was trying to run out of the room, her husband -Rajinder Kumar -appellant No. 3 had tried to bolt the door. It was also the prosecution case that all the three had set her on fire because they felt that sufficient dowry was not given to her by her parents.

(2.) THE defence of appellant -Babu Ram was that he was not in the house at the relevant time as he had already left at about 8.30 a.m. for the shop in which he was working. Krishna Devi's defence was that she was washing clothes in the courtyard of their house and was not present in the room on the first floor where the incident of burning had taken place. The defence of the husband was that he was taking bath on the ground floor at that time.

(3.) RAJINDER Kumar filed Criminal Appeal No. 389 -DB/88 before the High Court challenging his conviction. The State also filed criminal appeal No. 138/89 challenging the acquittal of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi. Both the appeals were heard together by the High Court and by a common judgment they were disposed of. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Rajinder Kumar and also set aside the acquittal of Babu Ramand Krishna Devi as it held that both the dying declarations made by Santosh Rani were true and there was no good reason to disbelieve them.