TEJBHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-6-87, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201/34 I. P. C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 I. P. C. THE case of the prosecution is that deceased Smt. Shakuntla-the sister of Babu Ram was married with accused Satya Bhagwan two years before the date of the incident. It was agreed before the marriage that the girl-side will spend about Rs. 1,00,000/- but they actually spent Rs. 60,000/ -. For the remaining amount of /rs. 40,000/-, a grievance was raised by the accused -side and the treatment of Satya Bhagwan, Tejbhan and other members of the in-laws of Smt. Shakuntla were not cordial with her. Smt. Shakuntla was given beatings by the accused. About six months before the date of the incident, Smt. Shakuntla was turned-out from the house after giving beatings. A Panchayat was held and Bhoj Raj and Banshi Dhar were sent at the shop of the accused for reconcilliation and an assurance was given that Smt. Shakuntla may be taken back and they will made arrangement for the remaining amount of the dowry. THEy agreed to that and Smt. Shakuntla was sent to her in-laws house. On the day of Rakshabandhan, Atma Ram-the brother of deceased Shakuntla went to the house of the accused and on that day Shakuntla informed her brother Atma Ram to arrange the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- otherwise the accused would kill her. Atma Ram told her sister that he would pacify the accused. On 6-9-85, the accused first committed the murder of Smt. Shakuntla by strangulation and thereafter, after sprinkling kerosene on her, lit the fire. Accused Tejbhan thereafter gave the information Ex. P. 14 at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction that Smt. Shakuntla D/o (late) Suraj Mal and wife of Satyabhagwan, has committed suicide at about 5. 00 p. m. and at that time they were at their shop and were informed by the neighbourers that a fire had taken place in their house. This report made by Tejbhan was registered under Section 174 Cr. P. C. and Pw 7 Mohan Singh reached at the place of the incident and started inquiry. During the course of inquiry, it was revealed that it is not a case of suicide but the accused has committed the murder of Smt. Shakuntla and after committing her murder she was put to fire. THE accused, after lodging the report, made the disclosure before PW 1 Banshidhar, PW 2 Atma Ram and PW 3 Babu Ram that they have committed the murder of Smt. Shakuntla. PW 3 Babu Lal Gupta the another brother of deceased Smt. Shakuntla thereafter lodged an F. I. R. (EX. P. 16) at Police Station, Hanumangarh, on the basis of which the investigation started, the accused were arrested and the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants.

(3.) THE prosecution, during the trial, produced seven witnesses. This Court, on 11-9-91, considered it proper to examine the two other Doctors who were the Members of the Medical Board any by the order dated 14-1-93, directed the trial Court to record the evidence of Dr. B. C. Sodhi, Dr. K. C. Mittal and Dr. Narendra Godara. In pursuance to this order, the learned trial Court recorded the statements of PW 8 Dr. K. C. Mittal and PW 9 Dr. Narendra Singh Godara. THE statement of Dr. B. C. Sodhi (PW 6) had already been recorded by the trial Court during the trial and, therefore, the accused were given an opportunity to cross-examine this doctor, who was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused in the trial Court.