RAJINDER KUMAR RAJU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER Kumar alias Raju -Appellant has directed the present appeal against the judgment 1.3.1999 and order dated 4.3.1999 passed by Shri V.S. Malik, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, vide which accused/Appellant has been convicted under Section 304 -B, of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Subhash Chand made a complaint that three years prior to his making the complaint, he married his daughter Mamta with Rajinder Kumar accused, resident of Rani Bhag Sakur Basti, Delhi. His daughter remained at her matrimonial home at Delhi for 1 1/2 years. Thereafter, it became evident to the complainant that his son -in -law - accused Rajinder Kumar had sold his property at Delhi and had wasted the sale proceeds. The accused told the complainant that he was left with no business at Delhi and had asked the complainant to give him his house at Yamuna Nagar for his residence. He also asked the complainant to take a shop for him so that he could work there. While staying at Delhi after his marriage, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - or Rs. 60,000/ - from Anil Luthra, brother -in -law of the complainant. To help his daughter to settle down, he allowed his daughter and son -in -law to occupy his house at Yamuna Nagar. He also took a shop in the premises of Gauri Shankar Mandir at Jagadhri on rent and had put goods worth Rs. 35,000/ - in that shop so that the accused could earn his livelihood by doing business there. Losses were shown by Rajinder Kumar in the business at that shop also. He had sold two gold bangles of the wife of the complainant, which the accused took from her and had also spent the price of those bangles. The complainant was bearing the domestic expenses of the accused for the last 1 1/2 years. In December 1996, complainant met with an accident and on account of financial constraints, he could not pay for running the kitchen of the accused. 15 to 20 days prior to the making of this complaint, the accused came to him at Paonta Sahib with Mamta and asked him to transfer the house at Yamuna Nagar in his name. The complainant had put off the matter by saying that the house still belongs to the accused because he was not to pay any rent for the same. The accused however, kept harassing Mamta for getting the house transferred in his name. Besides it, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - from his relative namely Subhash Chand son of Daryai Lal resident of Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi. Rajinder accused could not return any amount which he borrowed.

(3.) MAMTA was brought to Civil Hospital Yamuna Nagar on 15.4.1997. No surgeon was available at hospital so Mamta was referred to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri and from Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. About admission of Mamta to PGI, Chandigarh, ruqa was sent on which Karam Chand SI of Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh came there and sought opinion of the doctor about fitness of Mamta to make a statement. She was declared unfit to make statement. Mamta died at 3 p.m. on 15.4.1997. Inquest papers were prepared and post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted and found the deceased to have sustained 75 to 80% burns, which were deep on the chest, face and hands and the death was due to burns. Statements of Darshan Lal and other witnesses were recorded. Dead body was handed over to the complainant. Accused was arrested at Jagadhri bus stand on 16.4.1997. Inspector Arun Singh visited the spot on 17.4.1997 and recovered a stove, its loose cap, burnt pieces of clothes, match box, semi burnt sticks of the match box, chappal of the deceased from the kitchen of the house. These were converted into parcel and were sealed. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. After investigation, challan was presented against the accused.