RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was arrested in the case F.I.R. 278/87 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jaipur on the report of Manohar Singh brother of Tej Kanwar w/oof the petitioner whose marriage had taken place in the year 1984. The report contained allegations of ill-treatment and dowry demand by the in-laws of the deceased Tej Kanwar. As per the evidence so collected during interrogation by the Investigating Officer and the challan papersfiled against the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is that Tej kanwar committed suicide due to the ill-treatment or dowry demand by her in-laws. During the course of the investigation, the statements of Ashok Singh, Durga. Singh, and Madan Singh were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C., on the basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the deceased burnt herself in a closed room belted from inside and the deceased, herself, closed the room and that since the room was closed being bolted from inside, the ladies made a hue and cry which attracted the neighbours (aforementioned witnesses) who came on the scene of the occurrence and tried to break the door of the room and the door was opened. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore, contended that this is a clear case of suicide and it can never be said that Tej Kanwar was murdered. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the neighbour whose statements were recorded under Sec. 191, Cr. P.C. were the best persons who have corroborated the allegation of the informant and the statement of brother father and mother of the deceased regarding ill-treatment or dowry demands but not even a single word has been spoken by these neighbours regarding ill-treatment or dowry demands. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of the Informant, Manohar Singh, Puran Singh and Kishore Singh (all brothers of the deceased) and father and mother of the deceased. On the basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that it has been undoubtedly established that the accused (in laws) of the deceased used to ill-treat the deceased and, that the dowry demand had repeatedly been made by the in-laws of the deceased. He contended that if it is assumed that Tej Kanwar committed suicide then too, it may be held that the deceased committed suicide due to the alleged ill-treatment and the dowry demand. He further contended that the external injuries like cut and haemotoma found by the doctor who conducted post-mortem clearly shows that the deceased was ill-treated and she was beaten before death by heroin-laws.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the aforesaid persons who are not nearT relatives of the deceased have given tutored statement which is general in form. No details are made in these statements. From these statements it does not appear as to when, where and at what time, the deceased was ill-treated or dowry demand was made.