DHULA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-4-1993, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Dhula Ram for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C.

(2.) The case, of the prosecution is that on 21-6-1991, at about 1.30 p.m., accused Dhula Ram first inflicted an injury by a Khurpa on the head of his wife Smt. Kamla, thereafter sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and put her to fire. Some neighbours came to her rescue and Smt. Kamla was taken to the hospital, who was attended by PW 23 Dr. Renu Ranka - the Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Sadri. P.W. 16 Mahendra Singh, H.C., also, came there, who recorded the statement (Ex. P. 11) of Smt. Kamla. On the basis of this statement, an F.I.R. (Ex. P.13) was registered at Police Station, Sadri, at about 3.15 p.m. As Smt. Kamla had extensive burns of 94% all over her body, she was, therefore, referred for medical treatment to Bangad Hospital, Pali, where she was declared dead. As per the case of the prosecution, at the time of the incident, Smt. Kamla was asked by her husband to clean the grains, to which she replied that she was doing the same, whereupon her husband (accused-appellant) struck an injury on her head, thereafter sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and lit the fire. She raised alarms. Certain persons from the locality came. Thereafter accused Dhula Ram put water upon her. According to the prosecution case, all this was done as the accused was pressing her to get the room owned by her to be transferred in his name. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twenty-three witnesses and the accused, in his defence, examined two witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the accused appellant of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. but convicted him for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo ten year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment dated 16-4-1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, convicting and sentencing the appellant that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has wrongly been convicted and sentenced by the learned lower Court for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. Neither there is any evidence to show that deceased Smt. Kamla was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant in connection with the demand for dowry nor is there any evidence to show that the appellant ever demanded any dowry. The alleged demand of transfer of the room, owned by the deceased, in the name of the appellant, cannot be said to be a 'demand as a consideration of the marriage'. The alleged demand of transfer of the room in favour of the accused, which is said to have been made after four years of their marriage, does not fall within the definition of 'dowry'. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : Inder Sain v. State, 1981 Cri LJ 1116 (Delhi). It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Kamla was not in a fit condition to make the dying declaration as she had 94% burns and further that the dying declaration was recorded by PW 16 Mahendra Singh, H.C., though the doctor on duty was present, which raises a suspicion regarding truthfulness and veracity of the dying declaration and as such the so-called dying declaration cannot be relied upon. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : Smt. Chameli v. State (D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1984 decided on 15-1-1987).* The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the judgment passed by the Court below does not require any interference. * Reported in 1987 Raj. Cri. C. 154