BHANWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who are mother and son have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 10.8.1998 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar whereby both have been found guilty Under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. For the offence Under Section 498A of the I.P.C., each one has been awarded two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and for non -payment of fine further imprisonment for a period of six months has been ordered. For the offence Under Section 304B each one has been awarded 10 years simple imprisonment. The facts in brief are that the appellants are residents of 'Lawata Ki Dhani' Parbatsar and the complainant side belongs to village 'Maroth'. It is not in dispute that the deceased Smt. Prem, daughter of Jeewanlal (PW -3) was given in marriage to the appellant Surja Ram on 1.4.1993 and on 25.6.1996, she was taken to the hospital, in a precarious condition and died during the treatment at 9.55 AM, on that day. the treating Doctor Kisnaram informed about the fact, by telephone, to SHO, Police Station, Parbatsar. Accordingly a case Under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was registered at the said police station and the SHO proceeded to the hospital at Parbatsar. The maternal side of the deceased was informed and her brother PW -9 Bhag Chand, father PW -3 Jeewan Lal and other relatives also reached the hospital. During the investigation of the matter Under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. the condition of the dead body was recorded in the memo Ex.P/9 which was signed by the brother of the deceased PW -9 Bhag Chand and the cousin Satya Narayan (PW -8) and others.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution the father of the deceased PW - 3 Jeewan Lal in the evening, at 6.30 PM, produced a typewritten report Ex. P -2 to the SHO present in the hospital at Parbatsar. According to the FIR Ex.P -2 the marriage took place on 1.4.1993 and during the very first year of the marriage as and when the deceased visited her parental house she complained to the effect that the 'in -laws' were not happy with the dowry and were making demands for cash and ornaments and she is being taunted on that account by the in -laws. Since, Jeewan Ram was not in a position to accede to the demands, every time she was persuaded to go without dowry. According to the FIR, thereafter both the appellants and husband's sister started to beat Smt. Prem regularly and some 15 months prior to her death all the said three persons gave her a severe beating and thereafter, a day prior to 'Deewali' she was left at her parental house by her husband where she spent the next 13 months with her parents. After 13 months allegedly, the husband Surjaram, his father and other persons from Parbatsar came and persuaded the parents to send her to the house of her in -laws. People from the village 'Maroth' also intervened and she was sent with the appellant Surjaram. However, she was again beaten and she went to the house of PW -4 Gopal @ Kalu whose three brothers brought her to her parental house where she remained for two and a half months. Thereafter the appellant Surjaram, his father Chhotu and PW -7 Mohan Lal came to take her and at the assurance furnished by PW -7 Mohan Lal she was again sent to the house of her in -laws. According to the FIR there was no change in the attitude of the appellants and a demand was made for Rs. 10,000/ - in cash and for gold weighing 5 Tolas. On 25.7.1996 Jeewan Lal at 1.30 PM was informed about the tragedy whereupon he reached the hospital. According to the FIR there were injuries on the person of the deceased. The FIR ended with the allegation that the appellants murdered Smt. Prem by forcefully administering poison to her. A case Under Section 498A and 304B of the IPC was registered against three persons including the sister -in -law. However, after investigation, challan was filed against the appellants only in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar from where the case was committed for trial to the sessions court. Charges were framed Under Section 498A and 304B on the IPC to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and the evidence was closed on 4.2.1998. Statements of the accused persons were recorded Under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.2.1998. After examining DW -1 Babu Lal as defence witness the defence side closed its evidence and the case was listed for final arguments. However, prior to the hearing of the final arguments the learned Public Prosecutor moved an application, on 16.3.1998 Under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. which was allowed and PW -22 R.S. Sharma, Assistant Director from the FSL, Jaipur was examined as a prosecution witness. Supplementary statements Under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were then recorded and thereafter the DW -2 Ram Karan DW -3 Dayal DW -4 Chhitar and DW -5 Kishna Ram were examined by the accused -appellants. The five defence witnesses have stated that they are living in the neighbourhood of the appellants and to the best of their knowledge the relations between the deceased and the appellants were cordial and nothing untowards ever came to their notice.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the entire evidence and it has been argued that without any cogent evidence the findings of conviction have been recorded and the appeal requires to be accepted. It is contended that the whole story of demand of dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty is a concoction and the prosecution evidence falls much short of proving the guilt either Under Section 498A or Under Section 304B of the IPC. It is contended that although the death has occurred within 7 years of marriage and the same is unnatural but there is no evidence to suggest that 'soon before' her death she was subjected to any cruelty in respect of any demand of dowry.