DURGA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 5. 2. 2002 in Sessions Case No. 5/2002 (56/2001), convicted and sentenced, both, accused-appellants Naveen Kumar and Smt. Durga Devi, under Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code (for short, `ipc') to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 498a IPC to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that PW-6 Govind Ram, the father of deceased Maya, lodged a typed report (Exhibit P-5), to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Brahmpuri, Jaipur, wherein it was alleged that in the marriage of his daughter Maya, which was solemnized on 21. 7. 1999 with Naveen Kumar son of Jai Kishan, he gave sufficient dowry as per his capacity but her in-laws started harassing his daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry. He further stated that as and when his daughter came to her maternal home, she always complained of her in-laws about demand of scooter and cash of Rs. 50,000/-; the members of her in-law's family used to beat her. It was further alleged that about four months ago the members of her in-law's family told her that she should bring scooter and cash of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise she need not come to their house. On 24. 1. 2001 he received a telephonic message from Ram Prasad, the uncle-in- law, of Maya, at about 5. 00 P. M. that Maya has been admitted in hospital and she is in serious condition. Thereafter they reached at 9. 00 P. M. in S. M. S. Hospital and saw that she had burnt badly. On asking, she stated that her mother-in-law and husband set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her body, therefore, in the written report he prayed that necessary action may be taken in the matter.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that Maya was married with accused Naveen on 21. 7. 1999 and she died within one-and-half year. He further contended that it was not a natural death of Maya. He also read the statement of PW-2 Prahlad to show the conduct of the accused-appellants that they did not come in her rescue when her `saari' caught fire or she was set on fire. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly believed the dying-declaration (Exhibit P-17), which has been proved by the PW-10 Ajay Kumar Sharma, the Judicial Magistrate. He contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-10 Ajay Kumar Sharma in the facts and circumstances of the case and in these circumstances even if the parents and relatives of the deceased have been turned hostile during trial then still looking to the heinous crime relating society, the conviction of the accused persons recorded should be upheld.