SURESH KUMAR @ SHASHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 16.02.1993, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (I), Panipat, vide which, it convicted Suresh Kumar @ Shashi (now appellant), for the offences, punishable under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, for the offence, punishable under Section 304 -B IPC; and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years, and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months, for the offence, punishable under Section 498 -A IPC. The substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Savita daughter of Harbans Lal, was married to the accused on 22.10.1986. At the time of marriage Savita was graduate from Marinda House, Delhi, while the accused was only a matriculate. She was brought up and groomed at Bombay and Delhi. The marriage was performed, in five star hotel, at Delhi, and earlier, engagement ceremony had taken place, in another posh hotel of Delhi. The father of Savita had spent about Rs. 7 to 8 lacs, at the time of her marriage. On 14.04.1990, Savita, in order to commit suicide, sprinkled flit upon her body, and set her ablaze. She suffered burn injuries. She was got admitted in a hospital. On 14.04.1990, at about 10.00 A.M., Sh. K.K. Bali, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, recorded the dying declaration of Savita exhibit PA/4, after obtaining the certificate P/3 from Dr. Ravinder Kumar, that she was fully conscious and fit to make statement. In her dying declaration, she stated that she was alone in the house. She further stated that she put flit upon her and set her ablaze. She further stated that her husband wanted divorce from her, but she did not want to separate herself, from her husband, during her lifetime. She further stated that her husband used to quarrel with her, all the times. It was further stated by her, that her husband, after her marriage, used to subject her, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. It was further stated by her, that, in the presence of others, his behaviour was normal, but when she was alone, in the house, she used to be tortured by him. It was further stated by her, that she wanted to live with her husband for -ever, and did not want to leave him. It was further stated by her, that her husband, used to tell her that he would make her to lead the life of a stray dog. It was further stated by her that even then she wanted to live with her husband.

(3.) ON his appearance, in the Court of the committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, Charge under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B IPC, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.