DAYAWANTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution proved charges against the appellant- Smt. Dayawanti mother-in-law and Ram Niwas husband of deceased Smt. Sunita under Section 302 as also under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused of the appellant-Mange Ram father-in-law of Smt. Sunita was, however, given the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted. In the present appeal preferred by the appellants-Smt. Dayawanti and Ram Niwas, the obvious prayer is to set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak dated 21/26.10.1995. The appellants have been held guilty of intentionally causing death of Smt. Sunita and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They have also been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced similarly. Sentences on both the counts have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) SUNITA was married with appellant-Ram Niwas 3/4 years before she was burnt alive. The couple was blessed with a male child only a year and a month before she breathed her last. The F.I.R. came to be registered on the basis of the dying declaration made by Smt. Sunita before a Judicial Magistrate on 29.10.1992 at 1.15 p.m. She stated before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak that 3/4 years ago she was married with Ram Niwas and was blessed with a son who was one year and one month old. Immediately after her marriage, her husband Ram Niwas and mother-in-law Dayawanti used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They had caused injuries on her head four times. Yesterday at about 11.00 O'Clock she was cutting potatoes when suddenly her husband Ram Niwas and mother-in-law Dayawanti came there. They pounced upon her and gagged her mouth and made her lie on the ground. Her father-in-law Mange Ram and her husband's brother Rajesh had also come with them. They dragged her into a room where oil was poured upon by her husband, mother-in- law and other persons i.e. her father-in-law and her husband's brother. At that time her husband was very enraged and said that he would teach her a lesson for 'Bhaya Dooj'. They all poured kerosene oil upon her and her husband and mother-in-law set her on fire. As a result she got burnt. About half an hour prior to this incident, Pale son of her Fufa (father's sister's husband) had taken her son Naveen to his house. She had raised an alarm "burnt, burnt." Thereafter she had heard noise of breaking open the door but she did not know as to who broke open the door from outside as she was burnt severely. She further stated that action be taken against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband's brother as they all had set her on fire on account of greed for dowry and that she had nothing more to say. Before recording the statement of Smt. Sunita, Mr. J. S. Dahiya, Duty Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak had obtained opinion of Dr. D. P. Singh that she was fit to make a statement. On the basis of statement made by her as referred to above, formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/6 came to be record by ASI Raj Kumar at 3.30 p.m. on 29.10.1992 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Bahadurgarh. The said F.I.R. was, however, converted under Sections 302/304B of the Indian Penal Code after demise of Smt. Sunita who breathed her last on 2.11.1992. Special report regarding the incident had reached the concerned Magistrate on 29.10.1992 at 5.50 p.m. itself.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant-Ram Niwas stated that Smt. Sunita had caught fire accidentally while working in the kitchen and a false case had been planted against him and other members of his family for the purpose of extorting money and return of dowry articles. Smt. Sunita was tutored by her father, her mother and her brother before she made the alleged dying declaration. On the day of occurrence he was not present at his house but, in fact, he was present at the place of his working at Bahadurgarh, where he was working as a mechanic. He received the information and came to his house and took his wife Sunita to the hospital at Bahadurgarh from where he took her to M.C.H. Rohtak. He was living separately from his parents. His father Mange Ram used to work with Naveen Machine Tools, Daya Basti and at the time of occurrence he was away to the place of his working. They had informed parents of Sunita immediately after the occurrence and they reached M.C.H. Rohtak and contacted Smt. Sunita and tutored her for making a false statement. The appellants in their defence examined Mehar Singh DW-1. He stated that he was resident of Shankar Garden, Bahadurgarh and was daily passenger for Delhi. His house in Shankar Garden was divided in small portions meant for giving on rent to different persons. In the month of October, 1992 the outer room opening in the street which was the first one from the South was on rent with Dharmo. By the side of this room there was a passage 2/3 feet wide going inside. By the side of the above room and on the back of that room there was a portion wherein accused Ram Niwas was living with his wife and on the back of their room there was a small store which was used by the accused as a store and then there was a stair case leading to the first floor where other tenant was living. Murari and Raj Kumar were the tenants of other portions. Mange Ram father of appellant-Ram Niwas had a separate house in a different street. On 28.10.1992 he was present at his house in connection with construction going on in that house and at 9.30 a.m. he was climbing first floor through the stair-case when he heard a noise from the room in occupation of Ram Niwas where from smoke was emitting. He rushed towards that room and also there came neighbours Shiv Charan etc. The door of that room was bolted from inside. He collected many persons and then they broke open the door. He found that Sunita was burning and the stove was also burnt. They extinguished the fire. They sent for Ram Niwas from his place of work near railway crossing. Sunita was taken to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh and from there to M.C.H. Rohtak where she later died. In his cross-examination he stated that on 28.10.1992 he was on leave in connection with construction of his house but he had not brought any written record that he was on leave on that day. He further stated that they used brick-bats and then had given pushes for breaking open the door. There was no bolt inside but there was a chain which was fixed in the hook and in that manner the door was closed from inside. The entire body of Sunita had caught fire by the time when they reached. She had received burns upto the chest. She was wearing a salwar and a shirt. It was a printed cloth but he did not remember the colour of clothes worn by Smt. Sunita. He further stated that after the occurrence many people had collected there. He denied the suggestion that he made a false statement. He further stated that he used to leave Delhi at 7.15 by train and was a pass holder. The construction was going on in a plot in street No. 7 whereas the occurrence had taken place in a house in street No. 6.