MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon being convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to suffer ten and seven years rigorous imprisonment, respectively, appellants Mohan Lal and his mother Somti Devi are in appeal before this court. Appellants and Sat Pal (since acquitted) were tried on allegations made by Ranbir Singh son of Duni Chand, brother of deceased Darshna, wife of Mohan Lal, appellant No.1. Mohan Lal married Darshna about two years prior to the incident dated 31.7.1992. FIR reveals that dowry according to the capability of the deceased-wife's family was statedly given.

(2.) However, it is disclosed that appellant Mohan Lal started harassing his wife Darshna. As per allegations, appellant Mohan Lal had asked his wife to bring scooter in case she was interested to live with him. Darshna used to talk about her harassment whenever she would go to her parental house at Moga. A male child was born to Darshna about seven months prior to the incident, but her husband Mohan Lal appellant did not even come to see the child. It is alleged that demand of scooter was conveyed through messages for rehabilitating Darshna. The complainant, being poor person, was not in a position to meet the demand. A panchayat was convened on 26.7.1992 and Darshna was sent to Rajpura at the intervention of panchayat. On 30.7.1992, complainant Ranbir Singh received a telephonic message from one Kesar Singh of Rajpura that his sister Darshna had been admitted in Rajendra Hospital, Patiala due to burn injuries. On reaching Patiala, complainant, while being accompanied by his brother Mohan Lal, learnt that his sister Darshna was dead. He accordingly lodged a complaint that his sister Darshna was killed by appellant Mohan Lal, his brother Satpal and mother Somti Devi for bringing less dowry. Trial under Section 304-B IPC followed.

(3.) The prosecution examined eight witnesses, which included three doctors and the complainant besides some independent witnesses. Upon close of the prosecution case, the circumstances appearing against the appellants were put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their statements recorded. The appellants admitted the marriage, but denied having raised any demand for dowry or for causing harassment or cruelty to Darshna for bringing less dowry. It was further pleaded on behalf of the appellants that Darshna was living happily with the appellants in her matrimonial house and was never ill-treated. Explaining the cause of her death, it was disclosed that Darshna caught fire accidentally when she was boiling milk on kerosene stove. The appellants further pointed out that they were not present in the house at the time of incident and Piara Lal brother of appellant Mohan Lal and his wife Ninder Kaur had removed Darshna first to hospital at Rajpura from where she was shifted to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala by appellant Mohan Lal. It is accordingly submitted that appellants took effective steps to save the life of Darshna by removing her to the hospital and this would be indicative of their innocence.