RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-12-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 498-A/34, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months each.

(2.) The appellants along with Jagdish Ram and Ram Dulari (co-accused before the trial Court and hereafter referred to as such) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Una on a charge under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 read with Section 34, IPC. Case of the prosecution against them is that Neelam Kumari, daughter of Ram Kishan (PW-1) and Bimla Devi (PW-3) was married to appellant Rajesh Kumar on 26-1-1991 when she was aged 22 years. After about two months of the marriage, when Neelam came back to her parents house, she informed them that her husband Rajesh Kumar, her mother in law Pushpa Wati her Jethani Ram Dulari and her father in law Jagdish Ram used to himiliate her for bringing insufficient dowry. PW 1 advised appellant Rajesh Kumar not to maltreat his daughter and in turn he was assured that his daughter would not be maltreated in future. However, even thereafter, as and when Neelam came to her parents house, she complained about the maltreatement by the appellants and co-accused on the ground of bringing insufficient dowry. After about, one year of the marriage she was beaten up by appellant Rajesh Kumar and was left at her parents house. After about two or three days, he came back to take Neelam to his house but her parents refused to send her with him. When he apologised for his behaviour Neelam was sent with him. About 10 days before 21-12-1992, Neelam had again come to her parents house when she informed that the appellants and the co-accused who used to maltreat her for bringing insufficient dowry, had started maltreating her for not being able to give birth to a child. After staying in her parents house for three or four days, Neelam left for her in law's house with appellant Rajesh Kumar. On 21-12-1992, at about 6 p.m. , PW-1 came to know that his daughter Neelam Kumari was admitted in N.F.L. Hospital, Nangal. When he reached there, he came to know that Neelam Kumari had died. The doctors who had attended her opined in writing that there was smell of poison from the mouth of Neelam Kumari (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The hospital authorities intimated the police vide report Ex.PG ASI Karnail Singh (PW-7) then went to N.F.L. Hospital, Nangal and recorded the statement of PW-1 (Ex. PA), on the basis of which FIR Ex. P- came into being at Police Station, Sadar, Una. PW-7 prepared inquest report Ex.PD and got the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased conducted from Dr. R.S. Soni (PW-8) and Dr. Anju Ahluwalia. The post mortem examination report is Ex.PB. The cause of death, however, was not specified in this report and was to be given after receipt of the report from the Chemical Examiner, to whom the viscera etc. was sent for examination. As per the report Ex.PL of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, aluminum phosphide was detected, in the viscera. After receipt of this report, PW-8 and Dr. Anju Ahluwalia gave their opinion Ex. PM about the cause of death of the deceased. As per their opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was aluminum phosphide poisoning. On the basis of of the material collected during investigation, the officer in charge, Police Station, Una submitted a charge sheet under Section 304-B/34 IPC against the appellants and co-accused Jagdish Ram and Ram Dulari. The case came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, who initially on 2-11-1995, framed a charge against them under Section 304-B/34, IPC. However, at a later stage on the application of the prosecution, two more heads of charge under Sections 498-A/34 and 306/34, IPC were also added. To prove the charge against the appellants and co-accused Jagdish Ram and Ram Dulari, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the appellants Jagdish Ram and Ram Dulari were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case. Appellant Rajesh Kumar further stated that after six months of the marriage when he went to his in law's house, his mother in law (PW-2) made inquiries from the deceased as to whether she had conceived. Thereafter, he got Neelam Kumari examined from Dr. Mrs. Chawla at Mehatpur/Nangal and she opined that the deceased was having Rasoli. The parents of the deceased then got the deceased examined from Dr. K.K. Singh at Nangal who opined that there was no Rasoli. In 1992, he and the deceased got themselves examined from Dr. Sahoti who opined that the deceased was perfectly all right but there was some defect in him. After birth of the second child of Hardev (brother of appellant Rajesh Kumar), the son was given in the lap of Neelam Kumari. Thereafter, he and the deceased went to his in law's house but they refused to accept the child and because of this, the deceased used to remain upset and disturbed. In defence , Dr. Kewal Krishan Puri (DW-1) and Dr. Mrs. N. Sahoti (DW-2) were examined. On appreciation of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the charge against Jagdish Ram and Ram Dulari was not proved and the heads of charge under Sections 304-B/34 and 306/34 IPC against the appellants were also not proved. Therefore, he acquitted them to the said charges. However, he found the appellants guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34, IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid . Hence the present appeal by them.

(3.) I had heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent - State and have also gone through the records.