STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the prosecution case are as under :- On 24th May, 1988, A.S.I. Kewal Krishan-PW 10, was present in the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, in connection with the investigation of some criminal case, when he received information that one Indu since deceased wife of Ashwani Kumar of Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, had been admitted in the Emergency Ward of the Civil Hospital, with serious burns on her body. The police officer then went to the Emergency Ward and the doctor advised him that her statement be recorded by the S.D.M. The ASI, thereafter, made an application to the S.D.M., Jagadhri, and he deputed Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, PW-2, Naib Tehsildar, Jagadhri, to record the statement of the injured. The statement Ex.PEE was, accordingly, recorded at 11.50 a.m. on 24th May, 1988. In her statement, Indu stated that there were frequent quarrels between her and her mother-in-law and that very morning, there had been another quarrel on which she had gone to the kitchen, poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. She further stated that her mother-in-law didn't make any attempt to save her but had on the contrary given her yet another beating. She further went on to say that after the inhabitants of the mohalla had gathered at the spot, she had been removed to the hospital by her mother-in-law. On the basis of her statement, an F.I.R. was recorded at Police Station, Jagadhri for offences punishable under sections 323/306/511 of the I.P.C. As Indu's condition was serious, she was referred by the attending doctor to the P.G.I., Chandigarh, but she succumbed to her injuries on the way. On receipt of the information with regard to her death, the police made further enquiries and a challan against the two accused Raj Rani, the mother-in-law and Ashwani Kumar, the husband of the deceased was presented in the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 306/498-A/304-B of the I.P.C., and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.

(2.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 Dr. Naveen Sabharwal, who had first treated Indu on her arrival in the hospital; PW-2 Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration, which formed the basis of the First Information Report; PW-3 Dr. Gurupyari, who alongwith a panel of doctors including Dr. Naveen Sabharwal had carried out the post mortem examination on her body and had found very serious burn injuries; PW-6 Vishva Pati, the brother of the deceased, who deposed that at about 10.00 a.m. on 24th May, 1988, he had learnt that his sister had been admitted to the hospital with burn injuries, on which, he alongwith his brother Siromani, and cousin Ashok Kumar had gone to the hospital and had observed that her dying declaration was being recorded, and further that whenever he had visited his sister's house, she had told him that the two accused were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry; PW-7 Nathi Ram, who also deposed with regard to the demand for dowry made from the deceased and from her brother and ASI Kewal Krishan PW-10, the Investigating Officer.

(3.) THE trial Court observed that from the dying declaration of the deceased, no case under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. was spelt out as there was absolutely no reference to the demand for dowry or harassment on that account by the appellant in the dying declaration and that it was for the first time on the 27th May, 1988 that Vishva Pati-PW-6 had, in his police statement, stated that such a demand had been made, and as such this allegation appeared to be an after-thought. The trial Court also found that at the time when the dying declaration had been recorded by Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Vishva Pati had been present, and even at that stage, he had not interjected or made any reference to a demand for dowry. The trial Court, accordingly, acquitted the two accused of the charge under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. The Court, however, found that from the dying declaration itself, it stood proved that Indu deceased had been treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law and even on the day of the incident, there had been a quarrel between them, which had led to the suicide. The Court, nevertheless, found that there was no allegation whatsoever that Ashwani Kumar, the husband of the deceased had been cruel to her and, accordingly, convicted Raj Rani accused alone under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. Hence these two appeals - Crl. Appeal No. 265-DBA of 1992, by the State against the acquittal of Raj Rani for the offence under Section 304-B, and Crl. Appeal No. 35-SB of 1992, by Raj Rani challenging her conviction.