RAMPURI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal gives an account of a horrid episode wherein a husband doused his wife with kerosene and set her ablaze. In the instant appeal the husband and mother-in-law of deceased wife have called in question the judgment dated July 31, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 498a of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on May 14, 2001 Rukma, who was admitted to SK Hospital Sikar, gave Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-28) wherein she stated that she was married to Shri Ram Puri some five years back. Her husband and in-laws used to harass her in connection with demand of dowry. In the morning of the said day her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Her mother-in-law assisted her husband in committing the cruel act. On that parcha bayan a case was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of Rukma also recorded by a Magistrate. In the course of investigation Rukma succumbed to her injuries and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested 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) Sikar. Charges under sections 302 and 498a IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Dr. S. S. Sharma (Dw. 1) was examined in support of defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) IT also appears that co-accused Jhabar Puri, father-in-law of deceased Rukma, was also tried along with the appellants but he stood acquitted. Case of appellant Ratudi Devi (Mother-in-law) is not distinguishable with that of Jhabarpuri and she is entitled to benefit of doubt. In so far as the charge under section 498a is concerned we find from the explanation of the appellant husband that the incident flared up when the appellant husband asked the deceased to take oath in the temple that she was not involved in the theft of anklet. We are thus of the view that charge under section 498a IPC is not established beyond reasonable doubt.