DHANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Like a candle Burnt out I go out of this world Bearing the scars of a grief-stricken heart of desires unfulfilled of hopes belied.". Pale lips of Manju, a young bride, perhaps wanted to utter these words when she breathed last in the Government Hospital Gangapur City. Her husband (Dhani Ram), mother-in-law (Sushila), Sister-in-law (Samta) and brother-in-law (Dharmendra), the appellants herein, who were convicted and sentenced as under, seek to appeal from the Judgment dated June 15, 2001 of the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Cases Sawai Madhopur :- Under S. 304-B, IPC : To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. Under S. 498-A, IPC : To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default one month simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Dharmendra, who was also charged under Section 376, IPC, however stood acquitted of the said charge. Finding of acquittal has been assailed by the complainant in revision petition No. 665/2001.

(2.) Manju alias Babli, who was married to Dhani Ram (appellant) on February 16, 1997, consumed poison and died on August 13, 1998. She was driven to that action on account of harassment and cruel treatment suffered by her at her nuptial home. The events which culminated in the said tragedy have been set out by the prosecution like this :- Deceased Manju, daughter of Tara Chand Soni (P.W. 1) at the time of marriage was studying in M.A. Final Economics. Tara Chand Soni had three daughters and one son and was serving as Upper Division Clerk in Govt. Girls Polytechnic College Ajmer. Marriage of Manju and Dhani Ram was celebrated at Ajmer and father of Manju gave cash and jewellery worth three lakhs besides scooter and other gifts. Nuptial home of Manju was Gangapur City where her husband Dhani Ram was residing with his father Suraj Mal, mother Sushila, brother Dharmendra and sister Samta. Dhani Ram was serving in Western Railway and was posted at Ratlam. For about four five months Manju was treated well and she resided at Gangapur City and Ratlam. During this period she came to know that her husband had illicit relations with the daughter of his landlord at Ratlam. At Gangapur City she used to be harassed in connection with the demand of dowry and her Jeth Dharmendra had an evil eye on her. In the month of January, 1998 on the occasion of 'Sankranti' Manju had come to her parental home. Her father-in-law Suraj Mal had promised that after 15-20 days she would be taken back but when nobody came to Ajmer even after lapse of three months, father of Manju in the month of April, 1998 took her to Ratlam, where Dhani Ram met them and demanded a sum of rupees two lakhs for kidney transplantation of his father. When Tara Chand Soni expressed his inability, Dhani Ram told him that until money is arranged he would not keep Manju with him. Tara Chand Soni and Manju came back to Ajmer. In the month of May, 1998 Tara Chand Soni took Manju to Gangapur City where demand of money was also made. After leaving Manju at Gangapur City. Tara Chand Soni returned to Ajmer Manju having suffered cruel treatment at Gangapur City, wrote two letters to her father wherein demand of money was made. When money could not be arranged. Dhani Ram filed divorce petition against Manju, notice of which was sent to her father at Ajmer, Tara Chand Soni some how arranged a sura of Rupees one lakh and paid to Dhani Ram and his family members at Gangapur City. Even after receiving money cruel treatment with Manju continued. The incident of cruelty was so grave and unbearable that she committed suicide by consuming poison on August 13, 1998. Tara Chand Soni was informed on telephone about the incident, who rushed to Gangapur City and found Manju dead, Ratan Singh Lamba, Sub Divisional Magistrate Gangapur City made inquiry and submitted report (Ex. P. 34) at Police Station Gangapur City. A case under Section 304-B. IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Cases Sawai Madhopur. Charges under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A and 376, IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313, Cr. P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Four witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance weighed the material on record.