SUKHDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 23. 8. 1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 174/97, by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 304b and 498 IPC and sentenced them in the following manner:- Name of accused appellants Convicted u/sec. Sentence awarded to each accused appellant 1. Sukhdarshan 2. Kishorilal 3. Smt. Sita 304 B IPC Seven years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI. 498 A IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short, are as follows:- On 8. 3. 1996 at about 7. 45 PM, PW 1 Vijay Kumar lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before PW 17 Rajendra Singh, who was SHO, Police Station Kesrisinghpur at the relevant time stating inter- alia that his sister Mamta (hereinafter referred to as the deceased- wife) was married or 8. 05. 1989 with the accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar and at the time of marriage, as per their status, in dowry, 9 tolas gold, Scooter, TV and Rs. 21,000/- in cash etc. were given, but inspite of that, the present accused appellants Smt. Sita (mother-in-law of the deceased-wife), Kishorilal (father-in-law of the deceased-wife) and Sukhdarshan Kumar (husband of the deceased-wife) and others including Purshottam, Jeth of the deceased-wife and Rekha, Nanad of the deceased-wife used to torture and harass deceased-wife for not bringing sufficient dowry in marriage. It was further stated in the report that five years back, out of this wedlock, a son Gaurav, DW 2 was born and on this occasion also, gold and cash amount were also given, but her in-laws were not satisfied. THEreafter, cash was also given to deceased-wife for purchasing a house. It was further stated in the report that whenever deceased-wife used to come to her parents house, she used to tell that she was being tortured and harassed by her in-laws' for not bringing sufficient dowry and her in-laws' includes present accused appellants and her Jeth Purshottam and his wife etc. It was further stated in the report that one and half years back, a daughter was born to deceased-wife and on that occasion also, Rs. 11,000.- were given in case, but they were not satisfied. It was further stated in the report that before 20 days of the alleged incident, deceased-wife came to her parents place Karanpur and at that time, she having tears in her eyes told that her in-laws were still demanding there tolas gold and upon this, on next day, PW 1 Vijay Kumar, PW 4 Manoharlal, Khemchand and PW 5 Jaganath, all resident of Karanpur went to Kesrisinghpur and they all advised present accused appellants and others not to harass and torture deceased-wife for dowry, as sufficient dowry had already been given to them. It was further stated in the report that one day before Holi, deceased-wife came to karanpur and at that time, she told her mother and brother Pawan Kumar, PW 8 that atleast three tolas gold be given so that her in-laws' could be satisfied and at that time, deceased-wife was assured that they would come within 5-6 days to her in-laws' house and fulfil their demand. It was further stated in the report that on 8. 3. 1996 at about 6. 00 AM, a telephonic message was received from Kesrisinghpur (Place where her in-laws' used to reside) that deceased-wife was beaten by her in-laws' and thereafter, deceased wife and her daughter both were got burnt and upon this, they came to Kesrisinghpur, where they came to know that deceased-wife and her daughter had been burnt by the accused appellants and other relatives. On this report, PW 17 Rajendra Singh chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/59 and started investigation and during investigation, site plan Ex. P/2 was prepared and post mortem of dead body of the deceased-wife was got conducted by PW 15 Dr. K. N. Markande and the post mortem report of deceased-wife is Ex. P/57. THE post mortem of dead body of her daughter Bharti was also got conducted and her post mortem report is Ex. P/58. After usual investigation, police submitted challan in the Court of Magistrate against the present accused appellants only as police did not find case against Purshottam, Jeth of deceased- wife, Rekha, wife of Purshottam and Renu, nanad of the deceased- wife. THErefore, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 20. 10. 1996, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for the offence under Sec. 304b and 498a IPC against the accused appellants. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. THEy denied the charges and claimed trial. THEreafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, statements of the accused appellants under sec. 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, 8 witnesses were produced by the accused appellants. After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities ). Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order 23. 8. 1999 convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 304b and 498a IPC and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:- 1. That marriage of the deceased wife with accused appellant Sukhdarshan Kumar took place within seven years from the date of her death. 2. That death of the deceased-wife occurred in suspicious circumsta-nces i. e. otherwise than under normal circumstances i. e. by burning. 3 That for the sake of argument if it is held that deceased-wife was of hot tempered lady, all the same, the cause, which has been assigned by the accused appellants that on the date of fateful incident, a quarrel took place between DW1. Rohit, who is son of Pawan Kumar, jeth of the deceased-wife and DW2 Gaurav, who is so of the deceased-wife and for that quarrel, deceased wife would commit suicide, cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground for committing suicide by deceased-wife alongwith her daughter. 4 That non-production of mother of deceased-wife is not fatal to the prosecution. 5. That seven days before the fateful incident and one day before Holi, demand of three tolas gold was made by the accused appellants and further, for dowry demand, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has relied on the statements of PW 1 Vijay Kumar PW2 Hemraj, PW3 Satya Devi, PW 4 Manoharlal and PW 5 Jaganath and he has further held that though they are relatives, but it would not affect their testimony. 6. That though the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge has not given clear cut finding whether it was a case of suicidal death or not, but from the discussion of evidence made in the impugned judgment, it appears that he was of the view that it was a case of suicide. 7. That prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellants for the offence under sections 304b and 498a IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 23. 8. 1999 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

(3.) WHAT Sec. 304b IPC requires is that death of the woman should be unnatural. In Shanti vs. State of Haryana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that for applicability of Sec. 304b IPC, question whether unnatural death of a woman was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant.