GANPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Ganpat Singh, his mother Chhoti Devi and father Nahar Singh who have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur vide her judgment dated 31-3-2001 for the offences punishable under S. 498-A and 304-B, IPC. For the offence under S. 498-A, IPC, each one has been awarded S.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and two months' S.I. for non-payment of fine. For the offence under S. 304-B, IPC each one has been awarded S.I. for a period of seven years. All the three accused-persons were acquitted of the charge under S. 302, IPC. #

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that during the night intervening 7/ 8/08/1999, Smt. Sajjan Kanwar wife of the appellant Ganpat Singh received severe burns in the 'Kitchen' of her husband's house and was rushed to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment by the appellants. The appellant Nahar Singh (father-in-law) went to the parental house of Sajjan Kanwar and informed her mother PW 5 Munni about the incident. Sajjan Kanwar's sister PW 15 Gulab Kanwar was present with her mother and after receiving the news, she went to her husband PW/4 Madan Singh. Madan Singh despatched PW/6 Nathu Singh and PW/16 Prem Singh, who in a jeep went to village Dabar and informed PW. 1 Amar Singh (father of Sajjan Kanwar) and informed him about the incident and Amar Singh returned with them to hospital in the morning in between 7-8 a.m. However, prior to his arrival, Sajjan Kanwar succumbed to the burns at 7.05 a.m. In the meanwhile, at about 2.00 a.m. in the night, PW. 7 Kishan Singh made a telephone call to the police station, Mahamandir and informed about the burning of Sajjan Kanwar. Kishan Singh is said to be a neighbour of the accused-persons and was informed about the incident by the appellant Nahar Singh sometime between 1.30-2.00 a.m. He advised the appellants to rush Sajjan Kanwar to the hospital whereupon, the appellant Nahar Singh requisitioned a 'Taxi' and Sajjan Kanwar was taken to the hospital. At about 10.15 a.m. in the morning, PW. 1 Amar Singh gave a written FIR Ex. P/1 to PW/12 Bhim Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Mahamandir, who had reached the hospital after receiving the telephone from Kishan Singh. A case under S. 304-B and 498-A, IPC was registered. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the three appellants in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Jodhpur, from where, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, from where, it was transferred to the said trial Court. On 27-11-99, the appellants were charged for the offences under S. 498-A and 304-B, IPC. All the three appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. As many as 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, the three appellants were further charged for the offence under S. 302, IPC, to which, they pleaded not guilty. The statements of the accused-persons were then recorded under S. 313, Cr. P.C. DW. 1 Sohan Kanwar was examined in defence. She has deposed to the effect that Sajjan Kanwar used to live separately with her husband and the other two appellants were living separately. Regarding the incident, the witnesses stated that she heard the cries of the appellants Nahar Singh and Chhoti Devi and rushed to their house along with other neighbours where Sajjan Kanwar had received burns and told them that her husband Ganpat Singh had not taken his dinner and while she was preparing the dinner for her husband, she received the burns accidentally. According to the witness, Sajjan Kanwar was taken to the hospital and there also, she stated that none was responsible for the burns. Learned trial Judge then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 31-3-2001, against which, this appeal has been filed. #

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.