BIRBAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide CRA No. 1514-SB of 2002 filed by appellants-convicts Birbal & Bhaga (parents-in-law) and their son Ashok Kumar (husband) of the deceased (for brevity "the appellants") and CRR No. 1526 of 2003 filed by petitioner-complainant Krishan Kumar son of Sri Dutt (for short "the complainant"), arising out of the same impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence of trial Judge, by virtue of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition. Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal & revision petition and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, are that the marriage of appellant Ashok Kumar was solemnized with Sushila (deceased), sister of complainant Krishan Kumar (PW6) on 28.1.1995 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together and cohabited as husband & wife and a son was born out of their wedlock.

(2.) According to the prosecution that on 20.6.1999 on receipt of information, ASI Ram Niwas (PW9) reached General Hospital, Hansi, from where, he came to know that Sushila, wife of appellant Ashok Kumar, was referred to the Medical College & Hospital (in short "PGIMS"), Rohtak. Then, he reached there and sought opinion of the doctor regarding her fitness to make statement. Thereafter, he moved an application (Ex. P17) before Ms. Shalini Nagpal, JMIC for recording the statement of Sushila. The Magistrate reached the hospital and after completing all the legal formalities, recorded her statement (Ex. P19), in which, she had alleged that on the previous morning, she had set herself ablaze after pouring kerosene upon her as none used to treat her properly in the matrimonial home. She further stated that her husband and mother-in-law were not at fault (Theek Hain). Subsequently, Sushila succumbed to her burn injuries on 21.6.1999 at 7 A.M.

(3.) The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 21.6.1999 at about 5 a.m., one Ram Niwas came and informed the complainant that his sister had put herself on fire after pouring kerosene on her body. She was admitted in General Hospital, Hansi, from where, she was referred for further treatment to PGIMS, Rohtak. She succumbed to her burn injuries there. Thereafter, he (complainant) went to the hospital and made his statement (Ex. P5) to the police, alleging therein that whenever Sushila visited their house, she told that her mother-in-law used to taunt her that she was from pauper's family and the clothes brought by her at the time of marriage were of inferior quality. He was stated to have spent an amount of Rs. 15,000/- more than his capacity at the time of birth of son of his sister, but the accused were not satisfied. They continued to harass her on account of bringing insufficient dowry as per their status. It was averred that about 20 days prior to the present occurrence, the complainant had gone to her matrimonial home, where appellant Ashok Kumar had demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him for purchasing a tractor. He was unable to meet that demand on account of paucity of funds. He suspected that the accused have murdered his sister by setting her on fire or she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of Rs. 50,000/