JAGDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment dated 28.7.1990 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Session Case No. 13/1988, whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_341_LAWS(RAJ)5_2013.htm</FRM>

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the on 5.5.1987, at about 7.30 AM one Balraj Singh filed an oral report (Exhibit P-2) at the Police Station Raisinghnagar with the allegations that his sister Sarwajeet Kaur had been married to appellant Jagdeo Singh about two years back. She used to live with her husband and in-laws after the marriage. It was further alleged in the report that after about one year of the marriage, the mother-in-law Kartar Kaur, sister-in-law Angrej Kaur, brother-in-law Nakchatra Singh and her husband Jagdeo Singh started harassing and humiliating her on account of demand of dowry. It was further alleged that as dowry articles as demanded by the accused had not been given at the time of marriage, Sarwajeet Kaur was also beaten frequently. Sarwajeet Kaur gave birth to a son, the accused appellants demanded that she should bring more articles from her parental home (Pihar). On 4.5.1987, at about 11 PM, appellant Gurdeo Singh came to the village Karadwala and told the complainant and his family members that Sarwajeet Kaur had left the house on 4.5.1987 after 12 noon and she was not traceable. On this, the complainant along with his companions started searching for Sarwajeet Kaur. Ultimately, the dead body of Sarwajeet Kaur was found in the diggi of the village Luhara. Saudagar Singh informed the complainant that on 4.5.1987, Sarwajeet Kaur was abused by Kartar Kaur and Angrej Kaur. She was also beaten by Jagdeo Singh and Nakchatra Singh, due to which, she became perturbed and committed suicide by jumping into the diggi of the village.

(3.) On the basis of this report, a case for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A Penal Code in the court concerned. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar committed the case to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar framed the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 Penal Code against the accused appellants. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. The accused appellants in the statements recorded under Sections 313 Cr.RC. denied the allegations of the prosecution. Accused appellant Jagdeo Singh stated that Sarwajeet Kaur had never been harassed for dowry (dahej). He further stated that Sarwajeet Kaur was suffering from an ailment and, thus, she had been taken to Gurudwara for taking elixir of life. It was further stated that neither he nor any other person instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Four witnesses were examined in support of the defence. The trial court ultimately came to a conclusion that the charge framed against the accused appellants needed to be amended and, accordingly, on the basis of an application filed by the prosecution the charge framed against the appellants was altered and they were charged for the offence under Sec. 304-B Penal Code by order dated 5.2.1990. An additional opportunity of cross examination was given to the accused appellants, which was availed by them. The learned trial Judge on the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold that the deceased had been harassed and maltreated by the accused persons and, thus, she was instigated to commit suicide within a period of about two and a half years of the marriage. The learned trial court however found that there was no prima facie material available on the record of the case to hold that the accused appellants committed any cruelty on the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before her death and, thus, the accused were not liable for the offence under Sec. 304-B IPC. The learned trial court finally convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants.