DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against the judgment dated 17.12.2004 and order dated 20.12.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in Sessions case no.62 of 2002 whereby all the appellants along with co-accused Mahabir Singh and Dariya Singh were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 498-A IPC. All the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, all the appellants along with co-accused Mahabir were acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. One of the co-accused Dariya Singh died during the pendency of trial. Co-accused Mahabir was acquitted of the charges.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Smt. Bhagwanti since deceased was married to accused Dharambir according to Hindu rites on 31.05.1987. She was admitted in General Hospital, Hansi, with burn injuries. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Sh.J.B. Gupta, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, pursuant to an application made before him by the police. She died on 24.01.2002 in PGIMS, Rohtak. Post-mortem examination was conducted. Burnt clothes were taken into possession. Place of occurrence was got photographed. Kerosene soaked soil was taken into possession. It was sent to FSL, Madhuban. The disclosure statement was recorded. Plastic can of kerosene was got recovered from Turi Kotha of Dharambir. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. The appellants examined one witness in their defence. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.