CHANNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 17. 6. 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 70/99 by which the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused appellants for offences u/sec. 304b and 498a I. P. C. and has sentenced them as follows: Offence Sentence awarded + 304-B I. P. C. - 10 years' R. I. 498-A I. P. C. - 2 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) That on 1. 7. 99, P. W. 3 Gaja Ram lodged a written report Ex. P/2 in the Police Station Shergarh before P. W. 17 Anwar Khan, Sub Inspector alleging inter alia that his daughter Meera aged 20 years (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to accused appellant Bhaira Ram S/o Channa Ram one year back and since marriage, she was living in her in-laws' house along with her husband. ii) That on 30. 6. 99 at 9 a. m. , Inder Singh came to his house and told him that his daughter was ill and was admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, thereupon he and his brother Moola Ram P. W. 4 went to Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and found that Meera was admitted in the Burn Unit at Bed No. 3 of the Gandhi Hospital and her whole body was burnt and she was unconscious and he further stated that she died early in the morning of 1. 7. 99 at about 3- 4'o Clock. On being asked, her husband accused appellant Bhaira and father-in-law Channa Ram told him that on the previous night, when she was preparing roti, suddenly she caught fire and burnt and they had brought her for treatment in the Hospital. He has further stated in that report that all the accused appellants being father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband used to torture her, therefore, investigation about her death be conducted. iii) On this report, Marg FIR under Sec. 176 Cr. P. C. numbering 4/99 was registered at the Police Station Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur and investigation was started. iv) During the investigation, post mortem of the body of the deceased was got conducted by P. W. 20 Dr. M. P. Joshi on 1. 7. 99 and the post-mortem report is Ex. P/17. The doctor P. W. 20 Dr. M. P. Joshi has opined the cause of death as shock due to extensive burn. v) When investigation of Marg FIR No. 4/99 was going on, P. W. 3 Gaja Ram lodged another report on 5. 7. 99 Ex. P/11 before the SHO, Shergarh alleging that he was resident of village Chordia and the deceased was married with the accused appellant Bhaira on 9. 4. 1998 and all the accused appellants have murdered the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her. After marriage the accused appellants used to torture her for demand of dowry and they did not allow her even to come to her Pihar and his son Ramu Ram P. W. 6 went to take her sister, but they never sent her with him. Before this incident near about 1 and 1/2 months back, he himself went to village Bhalu Kala, then all the accused appellants abused him and thereafter, he went to the house of Babu Ram, P. W. 9 as the marriage was arranged by P. W. 9 Babu Ram. Thereafter both P. W. 3 Gaja Ram and P. W. 9 Babu Ram went to the in-laws' house of the deceased and after threatening that Panchayat would be called and because of that fear they sent the deceased with them. After that incident within 15 to 20 days. , the accused appellants Channa Ram, father-in-law of the deceased came again to the house of father of the deceased and told him that in future there would be no complaint and Chena Ram, Kumbh Singh, Chain Singh P. W. 10, and Rana Ram P. W. 5 also advised the accused Channa Ram that in future she should not be harassed. Thereupon P. W. 3 Gaja Ram sent the deceased with him and also sent his Bhatija Rawal Ram P. W. 8 with the deceased. IT is further stated in the report that as soon as the deceased reached the house of her in-laws, in presence of P. W. 8 Rawal Ram, she was tortured for demand of dowry by mother-in-law of the deceased and on next day P. W. 8 Rawal Ram came back and P. W. 8 Rawal Ram told P. W. 3 Gaja Ram that the deceased was tortured there and he was called by her. Thereafter his brother Rana Ram P. W. 5, Moola Ram P. W. 4 and Gaja Ram P. W. 3 himself went to the house of in-laws of the deceased in the village Bhalu and called Panchayat which was attended by 10 to 15 persons including Babu Ram S/o Megh Ram, Panna Ram P. W. 13, Luna Ram etc. and these persons scolded the accused appellants and they gave assurance that in future she would not be harassed and thereafter he came back. He had full confidence that she was murdered by the accused appellants because of non-fulfilment of dowry demand. vi) On this report, police chalked out a FIR Ex. P/12 for offences u/sec. 498a and 304b I. P. C. on 7. 7. 99 at 7 p. m. IT may be stated here that though the report Ex. P/11 is dated 5. 7. 99, but in the police Station it was lodged on 7. 7. 99 at 7 p. m. vii) Through Fard Ex. P/14, Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/16 accused appellants Channa Ram, Bhaira Ram and Smt. Samda respectively were got arrested on 22. 7. 99. viii) After usual investigation, a challan was submitted against the accused appellants for offences under Sections 304b and 498a I. P. C.

(3.) IN this appeal, following submissions have been made on behalf of the accused appellants: i) The learned trial Judge has ignored the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Guma Ram, P. W. 2 Rana Ram, P. W. 9 Babu Ram P. W. 10 Chain Singh, P. W. 13 Panna Ram, P. W. 14 Shanti, and P. W. 16 Swaroop Singh who had categorically stated that they were the neighbours of the deceased and they never heard about any type of harassment of deceased by the appellants and there is no legal evidence on record to prove the charges framed against the accused appellants. ii) The learned Special Judge placed reliance on the evidence of P. W. 3 Gaja Ram, P. W. 4 Moola Ram, P. W. 5 Rana Ram, P. W. 6 Ramu Ram, P. W. 7 Pappu Devi, P. W. 8 Rawal Ram and P. W. 11 Chaina Ram who are admittedly near relatives of the deceased and their evidence is based on hear-say and the accused appellants have been wrongly convicted. iii) That the first report which was given by P. W. 3 Gaja Ram is Ex. P/2 which is silent about harassment for dowry demand but in subsequent report Ex. P/11 which was lodged by P. W. 3 Gaja Ram the story of dowry demand has been mentioned falsely. iv) That in the hospital, relatives of deceased were there, thereafter the dead body was handed over to them and they did not make any complaint. Thus, a false case has been made against the accused appellants for dowry demand.