CHHOTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a peculiar case wherein a wife did not level any allegation against her husband but implicated only her mother-in-law for having poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Chhota Devi, appellant herein, who was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and imprisonment for three years with fine respectively for having committed murder of her daughter-in-law Manju by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City vide judgment dated January 16, 2002, has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 8, 2000 while Manju was admitted to the SMS Hospital Jaipur her statement was recorded by Chaina Ram, Sub-Inspector (PW-4) at 8. 20 p. m. In the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-5) Manju stated that she got married to Mangal Singh one year back and had a small daughter. She resided with her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Although she had cordial relations with her husband, her mother-in-law Chhota Devi used to harass her on the pretext of one reason or the other. Chhota Devi used to bear her husband also. In the evening Chhota Devi poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. She then rushed to the Police Station where the police put out the fire and removed her to the Hospital. On the basis of parcha bayan a case under Section 498- and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statement of Manju got recorded by SDM as well as Judicial Magistrate, site plan was drawn and appellant was arrested. After the death of Manju Section 304-B IPC got added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City. Charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B in the alternative 302 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. One witness Mangal Singh (DW-1) was examined in defence. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) FACTUAL situation that emerges from the material on record may be summarised thus: (i) Appellant and deceased lived separately on the date of incident. (ii) The two dying declarations of Manju got recorded by the Magistrate after Ram Swaroop and Bhagirath met her in the hospital. (iii) Mangal Singh (DW-1) husband of deceased deposed that since Manju wanted to sell the house and his mother declined, Manju herself poured kerosene, got herself burnt and went to the police station. (iv) From the evidence of Ram Swaroop (PW-1) and Bhagirath (PW-2) it is evident that they remained with Manju throughout. (v) A look at the site plan demonstrates that kerosene was poured on Manju in the room situated at first floor, whereas she was burnt out side the house in the ground floor.