DALIP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.93 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused- appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 498-A, I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Appellant Dalip alongwith his mother Smt. Seeto, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangar (Camp Suratgarh) for the offences under Sec. 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. In nut shell, the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Jeet Kaur was married to accused- appellant Dalip six-seven years before the date of the incident in village Goluwala. Her husband and mother-in-law Smt. Seeto used to harass her. On 4.11.87, Jeeto's brother Nanak Singh had gone to village Goluwala to attend the marriage in his relation. At that time he was informed by Smt. Jeet Kaur that her husband and mother-in-law had harassed her and have given beatings to her about two-three days before that day. His maternal-uncle Prema advised the accused not to do so. On 5.11.87, at about 6.00 a.m., Dalip informed him that Jeet Kaur has committed suicide by burning herself. According to the prosecution, she was cruelly treated by her husband as well as her mother-in-law and she committed suicide on being abetted by the husband and her mother-in-law. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses and placed reliance over sixteen documents. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence. PW 1 Nanak Singh is the brother of the deceased, PW 2 Prem is the maternal uncle of the deceased while PW 3 Krishna Ram is the another brother of the deceased. PW 4 Dr. Surendra Singh Chouhan was the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Pilibanga, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jeet Kaur. PW 5 Manohar Lal Arora is the photographer, who took the photographs of the dead body of Jeet Kaur while PW 7 Rameshwar Singh is the Additional Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation at the initial stage but on his being transferred, handed-over the investigation to Ram Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Pilibanga, on 4.2.88, who, after completion of the investigation, presented the challan against the accused.

(3.) The prosecution case mainly rests upon the statements of three witnesses, viz., the two brothers of the deceased. PW 1 Nanak Singh and PW 3 Krishna Ram and the evidence of PW 2 Prem the maternal-uncle of the deceased. PW 1 Nanak Singh has stated that Jeet Kaur was married to the accused-appellant Dalip about five-six years before the date of the incident and after her marriage, she was living with her husband at her in-laws house in village Goluwala. According to him, whenever she used to come to her parents' house, she used to inform that her in-laws are harassing and giving beatings to her. Jeet Kaur's in-laws were advised by them not to treat her in such a way but all fell to the deaf ears. On 1.11.87, the marriage of Prem's son was solemnised in village Goluwala. Jeet Kaur and accused Dalip, also, came to attend the marriage. At that time, also, Jeet Kaur informed him that her husband still used to harass her and requested him to pacify him or curb his activities. Next day he went to his brother- in-law's house and tried to pacify the matter, whereupon they stated that in future they will not do so. At that time he met Jeet Kaur, who had some injuries on her person. He, therefore, called his maternal-uncle Prem and asked her in-law's members to send his sister Jeet Kaur with him. They, also, called the Panchayat and the Panchayat asked the accused whey they were giving beating to her. In the Panchayat, accused Dalip and other members of his family admitted that they will not give beating to Jeet Kaur in future. Thereafter, he went to Hakam Singh's house and slept there, where, in the next morning, he was informed by his brother-in-law accused Dalip that his sister has put fire to herself. He went to his sister's house, where he found his sister Jeet Kaur dead due to burn injuries. From there he went to the Police Station and lodged the report. In the cross-examination he has admitted that for the first three years after the marriage, his brother-in-law did not demand any dowry from them and even after three years of the marriage he made a demand for the amount to purchase a tape-recorder only. He has, also, admitted that 11/2 years before the marriage of his maternal-uncle's son, his mother informed him that Jeet Kaur's in-laws are harassing her and a complaint regarding harassing her was made to her by the deceased. In his earlier statement, recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C., the demand of the tape-recorder by the accused has not been mentioned. When the witness was confronted with this statement he stated that he narrated this fact to the police but why it has not been written, he cannot say. When he was confronted regarding the injuries on the person of his sister deceased Jeet Kaur which he saw on 4.2.88 but the same has not been mentioned in his statement under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C., he repeated the same version and stated that this fact was, also, stated to the police but why it has not been written, he cannot say. In his statement Ex.D. 1, the statement of Jeet Kaur to his that Dalip and other members of his family used to harass her and, therefore, either she may be taken with him or he should pacify the accused, has not been mentioned and when confronted in this regard, he stated that he brought this fact to the notice of the police but why the same has not been written in his statement Ex.D. 1, he cannot say. The harassment by in-laws and the cruel treatment by them towards Jeet Kaur have not been mentioned in Ex.D. 1 and when confronted in this regard, he repeated the same story and said that he narrated so to the police but why this has not been mentioned in this statement, he cannot say. This witness has made some improvements from his earlier statement given at the initial stage during the investigation. The improvement during the course of the statement in the Court has been made by this witness in order to fit-in the story which was later-on developed by the prosecution.