NAROTTAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present appeal is the judgment and order dated 30.06.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.1/1985 convicting the appellants under section 306 IPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and also to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) I have heard Mr.V.R.Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Bhramanand Sandu, learned Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan.

(3.) The prosecution case is traceable to a statement made by the deceased Seema Devi w/o Naresh Kumar before Police on 29.09.1984 at Military Hospital, Jaipur (Exhibit-P7) to the effect that her brother-in-law Narottam nurtured a vulgar attitude towards her and for that the members of her in-laws family used to call her unchaste. She, however, stated that there was no demand for dowry. She alleged that when she disclosed the above to her husband, he also did not accept her version and instead started suspecting her and thus, being extremely depressed and frustrated, she had doused her in kerosene oil and set herself on fire to end her life. On this statement, the Police lodged a criminal case and on completion of the investigation, submitted a chargesheet against the appellant No.1 (brother-in-law of the deceased) and appellant No.2 (mother-in-law of the deceased). Noticeably, no chargesheet was laid against her husband. The appellants were charged under Section 306 IPC, to which he pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses including the Police Officer, who had recorded a second statement of the deceased (Exhibit-P7) and also the Investigating Officers. The appellants, in course of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, abided by their denial of charge. They also examined witnesses in defence. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court, however, convicted and sentenced them as above.