PRABHATI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRABHATI Lal, Smt. Murti Devi and Mahaveer, the appellants herein, were put to trial for having committed dowry death of Sunita before arbitrators Additional Sessions judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas (Alwar), who vide judgment dated June 05, 2002 convicted and sentenced he appellants as under:- U/s. 304 IPc To suffer imprisonment for life. U/s. 498a IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION version as projected during trial is as follows:- Sunita (since deceased) was sister of informant Ashok Kumar (PW- 1 ). She was married to appellant Mahaveer three years back prior to the date of incident. Immediately after the marriage appellant Mahaveer and his parents (appellants Prabhati lal and Smt. Murti Devi) started harassing her for the demand of Motor Cycle, Fridge and gas stove. The informant could somehow fulfill the demand of Fridge and gas-stove but pressing demand of Motor Cycle could not be met. Sunita therefore, faced ill treatment and torture at the hands of appellants. On May 15,2000 the informant was told by somebody at the village bus-stand that Sunita became ill and he was immediately called. On reaching at village Devsika he was told that Sunita was admitted at Alwar Hospital. The informant then rushed to Alwar hospital and found Sunita badly burnt. On being enquired as to what had happened, she told him that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law gave beating to her and got her burnt. The informant thereafter on May 15, 2000 went to police station Kotkasim and submitted written report (Ex. P-1 ). A case under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC was registered. Statement of Sunita was recorded by Judicial Magistrate. After Sunita died, Section 304-B IPC was added. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the arbitrators Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas. Charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In order to further its version the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence and stated that when Sunita had been burnt, they were away from the house. No witness in defence was however, examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) IN the present cases the cause of death of Sunita as per post-mortem report (Ex. P-12) was septicemia shock, brought about as a result of ante mortem dry flamed burns and super aided secondary infection sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. it is also established from the evidence of Ashok Kumar (PW-1) and Bharpur Singh (PW-4) that incident occurred within three years of marriage of Sunita and soon before her death she was subjected cross-examination the evidence of Ashok Kumar and Bharpur Singh could not be shattered and we see no reason to disbelieve them.