RAGHUWINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT who is husband of the deceased, Raj, has been convicted under Section 304 -B I.P.C. and sentenced to -undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case as narrated by Meena Rani, complainant, sister -in -law (brother's wife) of the deceased is that deceased, Raj @ Kanchan got married to Raghuvinder Kumar, appellant, on 1.12.1991. Her marriage was celebrated with great pomp and show, but after the marriage the deceased was maltreated by Raghuvinder Kumar, husband, Janak Rani, mother -in -law and Kasturi Lal, father -in -law. Whenever the deceased came to the house of her parents, she used to tell that her mother -in -law, father -in -law and husband were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and were compelling her to bring colour T.V. and a gold chain from her parents. Appellant started giving beatings to her. On 2.10.1992, the deceased came to the house of her parents in connection with Tikka festival. She was accompanied by appellant -husband. There e quarrel took place between appellant and the deceased as appellant -husband against raised the question of T.V. and gold' chain. It is further the case of prosecution that the husband went away by saying that he was not ready to keep her if she (deceased) does not bring T.V. and gold chain. At that time, father of the deceased asked Meena Rani to accompany Raj to the house of her husband. Both of them reached the house of the accused at about 2 P.M. where deceased's mother - in -law, father -in -law and husband were present. The husband rebuked the deceased by telling her to go for her in that house. Meena Rani requested the accused to keep Raj in their house. At about 3/3.30 P.M. mother -in -law of Raj told the appellant to kill Raj by setting her on fire. Appellant -husband took up a Can of kerosene oil and sprinkled the kerosene oil on the body of Raj whereafter her father -in -law pushed her into the bath -room and the husband set the clothes of Raj on fire. Raj died of burns within few minutes. It is further the case of prosecution that all the accused fled away after committing the offence. Post -mortem on the dead -body of Raj was conducted by Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, (P.W.1) Lecturer, Faculty of Medicines, Medical College, Amritsar who opined that the death of deceased was due to Asphyxia as a result of burns which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After necessary investigation, charge -sheet against Raghuvinder Kumar, appellant - husband, Kasturi Lal, father -in -law and Janak Rani, mother -in - law was filed in Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, framed charge against all the accused under Section 302/34 and 304 -B, I.P.C. to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, one of the accused, namely, Kasturi Lal died on 20.3.1994 and therefore, the trial was held only against two, i.e. Raghuvinder Kumar and Janak Rani.

(3.) IN order to prove the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and after closing of the evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused examined nine witnesses. On consideration of evidence on record, the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, acquitted Raghuvinder Kumar and Janak Rani of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Janak Rani was also acquitted of the charge under Section 304 -B I.P.C. However, the Sessions Judge convicted Raghuvinder Kumar for offence under Section 304 -B I.P.C. as the death of Raj took place within seven years of her marriage and otherwise in normal circumstances and sentenced the accused as stated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal.